Skip to main content

Full text of "Saint Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon : a rev. text with introductions, notes, and dissertations"

See other formats

f, i 







i.-^ iv 






■ ':-.'^'f' ^■■,v 'J't*^- 
'■•.■•>i ''i-i.Ar ■■ ■■>: 

t:Jv^-.:-^, V '■■-■• - 







A Kevised Text, with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. 
Ninth Edition. 8vo. 12s. 


A Kevised Text, with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. 
Eighth Edition. 8vo. 12s. 

TIUS, S. POLTCAEP. Kevised Texts with Introductions, 
Notes, Dissertations, and Translations. 2 vols, in 3. 8vo. 48s. 

APOSTOLIC FATHERS. Abridged Edition. With 

short Introductions, Greek Text, and EngUsh Translation. 

[In the Press. 

ST CLEMENT OF ROME. The two Epistles to 
THE CORINTHIANS. A Kevised Text, with Introduction 
and Notes. A New Edition. 8vo. [In the Press. 

PRIMARY CHARGE. Two Addresses delivered to 

the Clergy of the Diocese of Durham, 1882. 8vo. 2s. 

A CHARGE delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese 

of Durham, Nov. 25th, 1886. 8vo. 2s. 

NATURAL RELIGION." (Reprinted from the Contemporary 
Eeview.) 8vo. 10s. 6d. 














J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D., 






[The Right of Translation is reserved.] 

MiMHTAi MOY riNecSe kaBooc katoo xP'ctoy 

IlaOXos yfvonevos y-iyicrroi vnoypa^fios. 


Ovx ois ITaCXos Stardcrcro^iai Vfilv' fKe'ivos dnoaroXos, 
eyco KaTa<f}LTOs' eKflvos eXci'depos, (ya> 8t M*XP' ^^ 8ov\os- 


Oure eyo) owe aXAoy o/xoios f'/ioi Sui/arat <nraKoXov5^(rat 
r,7 ao(pia rov fxaKaploxj kcu ivbo^ov Tlavhiiv, 



T^zVj/ Edition May 1875. 
iV^ Editions Dec. 1875, March 1879. 
Reprinted May 1879, 1880, 1882, 1884, 1886, 1889, 1890. 











On the completion of another volume of my commentary, I 
wish again to renew my thanks for the assistance received 
from previous labourers in the same field. Such obligations 
must always be great ; but it is not easy in a few words to 
apportion them fairly, and I shall not make the attempt. I 
have not consciously neglected any aid which might render 
this volume more complete; but at the same time I venture 
to hope that my previous commentaries have established my 
claim to be regarded as an independent worker, and in the 
present instance more especially I have found myself obliged 
to diverge widely from the treatment of my predecessors, and 
to draw largely from other materials than those which they 
have collected. 

In the preface to a previous volume I expressed an in- 
tention of appending to my commentary on the Colossian 
Epistle an essay on ' Christianity and Gnosis.' This intention 
has not been fulfilled in the letter ; but the subject enters 
largely into the investigation of the Colossian heresy, where 
it receives as much attention as, at all events for the pre- 
sent, it seems to require. It will necessarily come under dis- 
cussion again, when the Pastoral Epistles are taken in hand. 

The question of the genuineness of the two epistles con- 
tained in this volume has been deliberately deferred. It 
could not be discussed with any advantage apart from the 
Epistle to the Ephesians, for the three letters are inseparably 

viii Preface. 

bound together. Meanwhile however the doctrinal and his- 
torical discussions will, if I mistake not, have furnished answers 
to the main objections which have been urged ; while the 
commentary will have shown how thoroughly natural the 
language and thoughts are, if conceived as arising out of an 
immediate emergency. More especially it will have been made 
apparent that the Epistle to the Colossians hangs together 
as a whole, and that the phenomena are altogether adverse 
to any theory of interpolation such as that recently put forward 
by Professor Holtzmann. 

In the coramentaiy, as well as in the introduction, it has 
been a chief aim to illustrate and develope the theological 
conception of the Person of Christ, which underlies the Epistle 
to the Colossians. Tlie Colossian heresy for instance owes 
its importance mainly to the fact that it throws out this 
conception into bolder relief. To this portion of the subject 
therefore I venture to direct special attention. 

I cannot conclude without offering my thanks to Mr A. A. 
VanSittart, who, as on former occasions, has given his aid 
in correcting the proof sheets of this volume ; and to the 
Rev. J. J. Scott, of Trinity College, who has prepared the 
index. I wish also to express my obligations to Dr Schiller- 
Szinessy, of whose talmudical learning I have freely availed 
myself in verifpng Frankel's quotations and in other ways. 
I should add however that he is not in any degree responsible 
for my conclusions, and has not even seen what I have written. 

Trinity College, 
April 30. 1875. 




I. The Churches of the Lycus i — 70 

II. The Colossian Heresy 71 — iii 

III. Character and Contents of the Epistle 112 — 126 


On some Various Readings in the Epistle 244 — 254 

On the Meaning of Trk-q pa fia 255 — 271 

The Epistle from Laodicea 272 — 298 





1. The Name Essene 347 — 352 

2. Origin and Affinities of the Essenes 353 — 394 

3. Essenism and Christianity 395—417 

INDEX 419— 42S 




YING in, or overhanging, the valley of the Lycus, a Situation 
tributary of the Mseander, were three neighbouring three 

towns, Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colossae\ The river flows, ^^*^^®^' 

^ The following are among the most 
important books of travel relating to 
this district ; Pococke Description of 
the East and Some Other Countries, Vol. 
II, Part II, London 1745 ; Chandler 
Travels in Asia Minor etc., Oxford 
1775 ; Leake Tour in Asia Minor, 
London 1824 ; Arundell Discoveries in 
Asia Minor, London 1834 ; Hamilton 
Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus, and 
Armenia, London 1842 ; Fellows Asia 
Minor, London 1839, Discoveries in 
Z/i/cia, London 1840; Daids Anatolica, 
London 1874 ; Tchihatcheff Asie Mi- 
neure, Description Physique, Statis- 
tique et Archeologique, Paris 1853 etc., 
with the accompanying Atlas (i860); 
Laborde Voyage de VAsie Mineure 
(the expedition itself took place in 
1826, btit the date on the title-page 
is 1838, and the introduction was 
written in 1861) ; Le Bas Voyage 
Archeologique en Grece et en Asie 
Mineure, continued by Waddington 
and not yet completed ; Texier De- 
scription de VAsie Mineure, Vol. i 
(1839). It is hardly necessary to add 
the smaller works of Texier and Le 
Bas on Asie Mineure (Paris 1862, 1863) 
in Didot's series L'Univers, as these 
have only a secondary value. Of the 

/O COL. 

books enumerated, Hamilton's work 
is the most important for the topo- 
graphy, etc. ; Tchihatcheff's for the 
physical features ; and Le Bas and 
Waddington's for the inscriptions, etc. 
The best maps are those of Hamilton 
and Tchihatcheff : to which should be 
added the Karte von Klein-Asien by 
V. Vincke and others, pubUshed by 
Schropp, Berhn 1844. 

Besides books on Asia Minor gene- 
rally, some works relating especially to 
the Seven Churches may be mentioned. 
Smith's Survey of the Seven Churches of 
Asia (1678) is a work of great merit for 
the time, and contains the earliest de- 
scription of the sites of these Phrygian 
cities. It was published in Latin first, 
and translated by its author after- 
wards. ArundeU's Seven Churches 
(i82S)isaweU-knownbook. Allomand 
Walsh's Constantinople and the Scenery 
of the Seven Churches of Asia Minor 
illustrated (1850) gives some views of 
this district. Svoboda's Seven Churches 
of Asia (i86g) contains 20 photographs 
and an introduction by the Eev. H. B. 
Tristram. This is a selection from 
a larger series of Svoboda's photo- 
graphs, published separately. 


roughly speaking, from east to west ; but at this point, which 
is some few miles above its junction with the Mseander, its 
direction is more nearly from south-east to north-west \ 
Laodicea and Hierapolis stand face to face, being situated 
respectively on the southern and northei'n sides of the valley, 
at a distance of six miles ^ and within sight of each other, 
the river lying in the open plain between the two. The 
site of Colossse is somewhat higher up the stream, at a distance 
of perhaps ten or twelve miles* from the point where the 
road between Laodicea and Hierapolis crosses the Lycus. 
Unlike Laodicea and Hierapolis, which overhang the valley on 
opposite sides, Colossse stands immediately on the river-bank, 
the two parts of the town being divided by the stream. The 
three cities lie so near to each other, that it would be quite 
possible to visit them all in the course of a single day. 
Their Thus situated, they would necessarily hold constant in- 

boifrhcod tercourse with each other. We are not surprised therefore 
and inter- -^q ^t^^ them SO closely connected in the earliest ages of 

course. ... ... 

Christianity. It was the consequence of their position that 

they owed their knowledge of the Gospel to the same evan- 
gelist, that the same phases of thought prevailed in them, 
and that they were exposed to the same temptations, moral 
as well as intellectual. 

Physical The physical features of the neighbourhood are very striking. 

*°o^k^ ^* "^"^^ potent forces of nature are actively at work to change the 
face of the country, the one destroying old landmarks, the other 
creating fresh ground. 

On the one hand, the valley of the Lycus was and is 

^ The maps differ very considerably Fellows Asia Minor p. 283, Hamilton 

in this respect, nor do the statements i. p. 514. The relative position of the 

of travellers always agree. The direc- two cities appears in Laborde's view, 

tion of the river, as given ia the text, pi. xxxix. 

accords with the maps of Hamilton and ^ I do not find any distinct notice 

Tchihatcheff, and with the accounts of the distance ; but, to judge from the 

of the most accurate writers. maps and itineraries of modern tra- 

' Anton. Itin. p. 337 (Wesseling) vellers, this estimate wUl probably be 

gives the distance as 6 miles. See also found not very far wrong. 


especially liable to violent earthquakes. The same danger Frequent 
indeed extends over large portions of Asia Minor, but this !^aVeg 
district is singled out by ancient writers^ (and the testimony 
of modem travellers confirms the statement^), as the chief 
theatre of these catastrophes. Not once or twice only in the 
history of Laodicea do we read of such visitations laying waste 
the city itself or some flourishing town in the neighbourhood*. 
Though the exterior surface of the earth shows no traces of 
recent volcanoes, still the cavernous nature of the soil and 
the hot springs and mephitic vapours abounding here indicate 
the presence of those subterranean fires which from time to 
time have manifested themselves in this work of destruction. 

But, while the crust of the earth is constantly broken up Deposits 
by these forces from beneath, another agency is actively em- ^^^3^ ^^^' 
ployed above ground in laying a new surface. If fire has 
its fitful outbursts of devastation, water is only less powerful in 
its gradual work of reconstruction. The lateral streams which 
swell the waters of the Lycus are thickly impregnated witK 
calcareous matter, which they deposit in their course. The 
travertine formations of this valley are among the most re- 
markable in the world, surpassing even the striking pheno- 
mena of Tivoli and Clermont*. Ancient monuments are 
buried, fertile lands overlaid, river-beds choked up and streams 
diverted, fantastic grottoes and cascades and archways of stone 
formed, by this strange capricious power, at once destructive 
and creative, working silently and relentlessly through long 
ages. Fatal to vegetation, these incrustations spread like a 
stony shroud over the ground. Gleaming like glaciers on the 
hill-side they attract the eye of the traveller at a distance 

1 Strabo xii. 8 (p. 578) to TroKvTp-qTov of Denizli, which is close to Laodicea, 

T^s %w/)as KoX TO evaeicTToi'' el yap ' The old town was destroyed about 25 

TLs dWrj, Kal 17 AaoSUeia evaeiaros, Kal years past by an earthquake, in which 

T^s TrXijfftoxwpou 5^ Kdpovpa, loann. 12,000 people perished.' 
Lyd. p. 349 (ed. Bonn.) nvKvoTepov ^ See below, p. 38. 

ffeliTai, ola ret irepl ttjv ^pvyias Aaodi- * Tchihatcheff P. i. Geogr. Phys. 

xelav Kal ttjv irap avTy'Iepdv woXtv. Comp. p. 344 sq., esp. p. 353. See the 

^ Thus Pococke (p. 71) in 1745 writes references below, pp. 9 sq., 15. 

I — 2 


of twenty miles S and form a singularly striking feature in 
scenery of more than common beauty and impressiveness. 
Produce At the same time, along with these destructive agencies, 

factoes of ^^^ fertility of the district was and is unusually great. Its 
the (lis- j.[q[^ pastures fed large flocks of sheep, whose fleeces were of 
a superior quality ; and the trade in dyed woollen goods was 
the chief source of prosperity to these towns. For the bounty 
of nature was not confined to the production of the material, 
but extended also to the preparation of the fabric. The 
mineral streams had chemical qualities, which were highly 
valued by the dyer*. Hence we find that all the three towns, 
with which we are concerned, were famous in this branch of 
trade. At Hierapolis, as at Thyatira, the guild of the dyers 
appears in the inscriptions as an important and influential 
body^. Their colours vied in brilliancy with the richest 
scarlets and purples of the farther East*. Laodicea again was 
famous for the colour of its fleeces, probably a glossy black, 
Vhich was much esteemed^ Here also we read of a guild 
of dyers ^ And lastly, Colossse gave its name to a peculiar 

^ Fellows Asia Minor p. 283. vv/xov xP'^I^'^-to^, ■rrXricrlov oUovvTes. For 

2 See note 4. this straaige adjective Kopa^os (which 

3 Boeckli no. ^gi^. (comp. Aruitolica seems to be derived from Kopa^ and to 
p. 104) TovTo TO ripoiov 2Te0df<^ 77 ipya- mean 'raven-black') see the passages 
ffla rwv jSa^^wv, at Hierapolis. See in Hase and Dindorf's Steph. Thes. 
Laborde, pi. xxxv. In another iuscrip- In Latin we find the form coracinus, 
tion too (Le Bas and Waddington, no. Yitruv. viii. 3 § 14 'Aliis coracino co- 
1687) there is mention of the purple- loi-e,' Laodicea being mentioned in the 
dyers, ■irop4>vpaPa<pds. contest. Yitruvius represents this as 

* Strabo xiLi. 4. 14 (p. 630) tvTL bh the natural colour of the fleeces, and 

Kol irpo% ^a<prjv iplicu davfj.acTTU$ crvfi- attributes it to the water drunk by the 

ixerpov TO Kara ttjv 'lepav ttoXlv liSup, sheep. See also Pliu. N. H. viii. 48 

ciVre to. iK t(2v pi^uv ^aiTToixeva ivd.- § 73. So too Hieron. adv. Jovin. ii. 

tnWa dvai rots ^/c t^s kokkov koi tols 21 (11. p. 358) 'LaodicejE indumentis 

k\ovpyicLv. omatus incedis.' The ancient accounts 

5 Strabo xii. 8. 16 (p. 578) 0^pet 5' 6 of the natural colour of the fleeces in 

irepl TTiv AaoSiKeiav tottos irpo^dTwv tliis neighbourhood are partially con- 

dperas ovk eh pi-aKaKOT-qTo. p.6vov Ti2v fu-med by modern travellers ; e. g. Po- 

ipiwi', fj Kai Twv 'Ml\7]<tIui> Sia<p^pei, cocke p. 74, Chandler p. 228. 
oXXct Kal eU ttiv Kopa^rjv xpo^". '^('"''e ® Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3938 [ij ip- 

Kal irpocrodeiovTai \a/Mirpws dw' avTiou, yaala] tuv yva(fii[uv Kal §a(}>i(j)v rwJ'] 

u)<nr€p Kal ol KoXoaa-qvot (ztto tov bnw- a\ovpy[i2\v. 



dye, which seems to have been some shade of purple, and 

from which it derived a considerable reveniie^ --- " 

I. Of these three towns Laodicea, as the most important, j, laodi- 

deserves to be considered first. Laodice was a common name t^ ^^^ 

Its najne 

among the ladies of the royal house of the Seleucidas, as ^^^ his- 
Antiochus was among the princes. Hence Antiochia and Lao- 
dicea occur frequently as the designations of cities within 
the dominions of the Syrian kings. Laodicea on the Lycus"^, 
as it was surnamed to distinguish it from other towns so 
called, and more especially perhaps from its near neighbour 
Laodicea Catacecaumene, had borne in succession the names 
of Diospolis and Rhoas'; but when refounded by Antiochus 
Theos(B.C. 261 — 246), it was newly designated after his wife 
Laodice*. It is situated^ on an undulating hill, or group 
of hills, which overhangs the valley on the south, being washed 
on either side by the streams of the Asopus and the Caprus, 
tributaries of the Lycus^ Behind it rise the snow-capped 

^ See the passage of Strabo quoted 
p. 4, note 5. The place gives its name 
to the colour, and not conversely, 
as stated in Blakesley's Herod, vii. 
113. See also Plin. N. H. xxi. 9 § 27, 
*In vepribus nascitur cyclaminum ... 
flos ejus colossinus in coronas admit- 
titur,' a passage which assists in de- 
termining the colour. 

^ enl AvKi{), Boeckh Corp. Inscr. no. 
3938, Ptol. Geogr. v. 2, Tab. Peut. 
* laudicinm pilycum '; irpbs [rt^] Avko:, 
Eckhei Num. Vet. in. p. 166, Strabo 
1. c, Boeckh C. 1. 588 r, 5893 ; vpbi Avkov, 
Boeckh 6478. A citizen was styled 
AaodiKeiis dirb Avkov, Diog. Laert. ix. 
12 § 116 ; C. I. L. VI. 374 ; comp. irtpl 
Thv Avkov Appian. Mithr. 20. 

3 Phn. N. H. V. 29. 

* Steph. Byz. s. v., who quotes the 
oracle ra obedience to which (ws ineXev- 
ae Zeiis v\pL^peij.iT7)<;) it was founded. 

^ For descriptions of Laodicea see 
Smith p. 250 sq., Pococke p. 71 sq., 
Chandler p. 224 sq., Arundell Seven 

Churches p. 84 sq., Asia Minor 11. p. 180 
sq., Fellows ^staillinor 280 sq., Hamil- 
ton I. p. 514 sq., Davis Anatolica p. 
92 sq., Tchihatcheff P. i. p. 252 sq., 
258 sq. See also the views in Laborde, 
pi. xxxix, Allom and Walsh 11. p. 86, 
and Svoboda phot. 36 — 38. 

The modern Turkish name is Eski- 
hissar, ' the Old Castle, ' corresponding 
to the modern Greek, Paledkastro, 
a common name for the sites of an- 
cient cities; Leake p. 251. On the 
ancient site itself there is no town or 
village ; the modern city Denizh is a 
few miles off. 

^ The position of Laodicea with 
respect to the neighbouring streams is 
accurately described by Pliny N. H. 
V. 29 ' Imposita est Lyco flumini, la- 
tera affluentibus Asopo et Capro ' ; see 
Tchihatcheff P. i. p. 258. Strabo 
xii (1. c.) is more careless in his de- 
scription (for it can hardly be, as 
Tchihatcheff assumes, that he has 
mistaken one of these two tributaries 


heights of Cadmus, the lofty mountain barrier which shuts in 
Its grow- the south side of the main valley\ A place of no great 
perity. " importance at first, it made rajDid strides in the last days 
of the republic and under the earliest Caesars, and had be- 
come, two or three generations before St Paul wrote, a po- 
pulous and thriving cityl Among its famous inhabitants 
are mentioned the names of some philosophers, sophists, and 
rhetoricians, men renowned in their da}' but forgotten or 
almost forgotten now^ More to our purpose, as illustrating 
the boasted wealth and prosperity of the city, which appeared 
as a reproach and a stumblingblock in an Apostle's eyes*, are 
the facts, that one of its citizens, Polemo, became a king and a 
father of kings, and that another, Hiero, having accumulated 
enormous wealth, bequeathed all his property to the people 
and adorned the city with costly gifts^ To the good fortune 
of her principal sons, as well as to the fertility of the country 
around, the geographer Strabo ascribes the increase and pros- 
perity of Laodicea. The ruins of public buildings still bear 
testimony by their number and magnificence to the past great- 
ness of the city®. 

for the Lycus itself), ivravOa 5i Kal Lycus and the Lycus for the Maeander. 

6 Kdirpos Kal 6 AvKos ffvpL^aWu Tip The modern name of the Lycus is 

Maidr5p<(» iroTa/xil) irorafibs evueyidrji, Tchoruk Sti. 

where ivravda refers to o Trepl ttjv ^ The modern name of Cadmus is 

AaoUKuav roiros, and where by the Baba-Dagh, ' The father of mountains.' 

junction of the stream with the Mas- ^ Strabo xii. 1. c. ■q 6^ Aao5i\-eta 

ander must be intended the junction fiiKpa irpbrepov ovaa av^rjaiv IXa^ev i(p' 

of the combined stream of the Lycus Tjp.wv Kal tCjv -^fxeTepwi/ Traripoiv, Kalroi 

and Caprus. On the coins of Lao- KaKwdeiaa e'/c TroXiopdas ivl "MiBpiddTov 

dicea (Eckhel iii. p. i66, Mionnet iv. tov Einrdropoi. Strabo flourished in 

p. 330, ib. Suppl. VII. p. 587, 589) the time of Augustus and the earlier 

the Lycus and Caprus appear to- years of Tiberius. The growing im- 

gether, being sometimes represented portance of Laodicea dates from before 

as a wolf and a wild boar. The Asopus the age of Cicero : see p. 7. 

is omitted, either as being a less im- ^ strabo 1. c. ; Diog. Laert. ix. 1 1 

portant stream or as being less capa- § 106, 12 § 116; Philostr. Vit. Soph. 

ble of symbolical representation. Of i. 25 ; Eckhel Doctr. Num. Vet. iii. 

modem travellers, Smith (p. 250), and p. 162, 163 sq. 

after him Pococke (p. 72), have cor- * Eev. iii. 17; see below p. 43. 

rectly described the position of the ^ Strabo 1. c. On this family see 

streams. Chandler (p. 227), misled by Ephemeris Epigraphica i. p. 270 sq. 

Strabo, mistakes the Caprus for the ® Tlie ruins of Laodicea have formed 



Not less important, as throwing light on the Apostolic Its poUti- 
history, is the political status of Laodicea. Asia Minor afthT^' 
under the Komans was divided into districts, each compris- ^''P'**^ °^ '^ 
ing several towns and having its chief city, in which the 
courts were held from time to time by the proconsul or 
legate of the province, and where the taxes from the sub- 
ordinate towns were collected \ Each of these political ao-- 
gi-egates was styled in Latin conventus, in Greek hLoua](n<i — 
a term afterwards borrowed by the Christian Church, being 
applied to a similar ecclesiastical aggregate, and thus natu- 
ralised in the languages of Christendom as diocese. At the 
head of the most important of these political dioceses, the 
'Cibyratic convention' or 'jurisdiction,' as it was called, com- 
prising not less than twenty-five towns, stood Laodicea^. 
Here in times past Cicero, as proconsul of Cilicia, had held 
his court ^ ; hither at stated seasons flocked suitors, advo- 

the quarry out of which the modern 
town of Denizli is built. Yet notwith- 
standing these depredations they are 
still veiy extensive, comprising an 
amphitheatre, two or three theatres, 
an aqueduct, etc. The amphitheatre 
was built by the munificence of a 
citizen of Laodicea only a few years 
after St Paul wrote, as the inscription 
testifies ; Boeckh G. I. no. 3935. See 
especially Hamilton i. p. 515 sq., who 
describes these ruins as 'bearing the 
stamp of Eoman extravagance and 
luxury, rather than of the stern and 
massive sohdity of the Greeks.' 

^ See Marquardt Romische StaaU- 
verwaltung i. p. 365 sq. 

2 See Cic. ad Att. v. 21, 'Idibus 
Februariis ... forum institueram agere 
Laodicea Cibyraticum,' with the re- 
ferences in the next note : comp. also 
Plin. N. H. v. -29 ' Una (jurisdictio) 
appellatur Cibyi-atica. Ipsum (i. e. 
CibjTa) oppidum Phrygiffi est. Con- 
veniunt eo xxv civitates, celeberrima 
urbe Laodicea.' 

Besides these passages, testimony is 
borne to the importance of the Ciby- 
ratic ' conventus ' by Strabo, xui. 4 
§ 17 (p. 631), iv Tois /J,eyi<TTais i^erd^e- 
Tai ^lOLK-qaeai. rrjs 'Afflas tj Kij3vpaTiK-^, 
It will be remembered also that Ho- 
race singles out the Cibyratica negotia 
(Epist. i. 6. 33) to represent Oriental 
trade generally. The importance of 
Laodicea may be inferred fi'om the fact 
that, though the union was named after 
Cibyra, its head-quarters were from the 
first fixed at or soon afterwards trans- 
ferred to Laodicea. 

^ See ad Fam. ii. 17, iii. 5, 7, 8, 
ix. 25, xiii. 54, 67, XV. 4; ad Att.v. 16, 
17, 20, 21, vi. I, 2, 3, 7. He visited 
Laodicea on several occasions, some- 
times making a long stay there, and 
not a few of his letters are written 
thence. See especially his account of 
his work there, ad Att. xi. 2, ' Hoc foro 
quod egi ex Idibus Februariis LaodicejB 
ad Kalendas Maias omnium dioece- 
sium, prater Ciliciae, mirabiUa quae- 
dam efficimus ; ita multae civitates. 


cates, clerks, sheriifs'-officers, tax-collectors, pleasure-seekers, 
courtiers — all those crowds whom business or leisure or policy 
or curiosity would draw together from a wealthy and populous 
district, when the representative of the laws and the majesty 
of Rome appeared to receive homage and to hold his assize\ 
To this position as the chief city of the Cibyratic union the 
inscriptions probably refer, when they style Laodicea the 
'metropolisV And in its metropolitan rank we see an 
explanation of the fact, that to Laodicea, as to the centre 
of a Christian diocese also, whence their letters would rea- 
dily be circulated among the neighbouring brotherhoods, two 
Apostles addressed themselves in succession, the one writing 
from his captivity in Rome', the other from his exile at 
Its religi- On the religious worship of Laodicea very little special in- 

sMp^**^' formation exists. Its tutelary deity was Zeus, whose guardian- 
ship had been recognised in Diospolis, the older name of the 
city, and who, having (according to the legend) commanded its 
rebuildinof, was commemorated on its coins with the surname 
Laodicenus*. Occasionally he is also called Aseis, a title which 
perhaps reproduces a Syrian epithet of this deity, ' the mighty.' 
If this interpretation be correct, we have a link of connexion 
between Laodicea and the religions of the farther East — a con- 
nexion far from improbable, considering that Laodicea was 

etc' Altogether Laodicea seems to p. 184. It had lost its original sense, 

have been second in importance to as the mother city of a colony. Lao- 

none of the cities in his province, ex- dicea is styled ' metropolis ' on the 

cept perhaps Tarsus. See also the coins, Mionnet rv. p. 321. 
notice, in VeiT. Act. ii. i. c. 30. ^ Col. iv. 16 with the notes. See 

1 The description which Dion Chry- also below p. 37, and the introduction 

sostom gives in his eulogy of Celasnte to the Epistle to the Ephesians. 
(Apamea Cibotus), the metropolis of * Eev. iii. 14. 

a neighbouring ' dioecesis,' enables us ^ See Eckhel in. p. 159 sq. (passim), 

to realise the concourse which gather- Mionnet iv. p. 315 sq., ib. Suppl. vii. 

ed together on these occasions : Orat. p. 578 sq. (passim). In the coins com- 

XXXV (11. p. 69) ^vvdyerai. TrXrjdos dvdpw- memorating an aUiance with some 

iruv SLK'jL^ofx^vwv, SiKa^ovToji^, iiyefidvuv, other city Laodicea is represented by 

htiip^T&v, oiKiTwv, K.T.X. Zcus ; e. g. Mionnet iv. pp. 320, 324, 

2 On this word see Marquardt 1. c. 331 sq., Suppl. vii. pp. 586, 589. 


refounded by a Syrian king and is not unlikely to have 
adopted some features of Syrian worship \ 

2. On the north of the valley, opposite to the sloping 2. Hieea- 
hills which mark the site of Laodicea, is a broad level terrace its situa- 
jutting out from the mountain side and overhanging the plain ^'^°^' 
with almost precipitous sides. On this plateau are scattered 
the vast ruins of HiERAPOLisl The mountains upon which 
it abuts occupy the wedge of ground between the Mseander 
and the Lycus ; but, as the Mseander above its junction 
with the Lycus passes through a narrow ravine, they blend. 

1 ACeiC or AC€IC AAOAlKeoON. See 
Waddington Voyage en Asie Mineure 
au point de vue Numismatique (Paris 
1853) PP- 25, 26 sq. Mr Waddington 
adopts a suggestion communicated to 
him by M. de Longperier that this 
wordrepresents the Aramaic HVW 'the 
strong, mighty,' which appears also in 
the Arabic 'Aziz.' This view gains 
some confirmation from the fact, not 
mentioned by Mr Waddington, that 
'A^^os was an epithet of the Ares of 
Edesaa: Juhan Orat. iv; comp. Cure- 
ton Spic. Syr. p. 80, and see Lagard-e 
Gesamm. Abhandl. p. 16. On the other 
hand this Shemitic word elsewhere, 
when adopted into Greek or Latin, is 
written'Aftfosor Azizus: seeGarrucci in 
the Archceologia xliii. p. 45 ' Tyrio Sep- 
timio Azizo,' and Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 
gSg^" A ^i^os' Ay plira'Zvpos. M. de Long- 
perier offers the alternative that ACeiC, 
i. e. 'Aais, is equivalent to 'AcriariKds. 
An objection to this view, stronger 
than those urged by Mr Waddington, 
is the fact that 'Act's seems only to be 
used as a feminine adjective. M. 
Renan points to the fact that this 
zeyc AC6IC is represented with his 
hand on the horns of a goat, and on 
the strength of this coincidence would 
identify him with 'the Azazel of the 
Semites' {Saint Paul, p. 359), though 
tradition and orthography ahke point to 
some other derivation of Azazel (7 TX TU) . 

^ For descriptions of Hierapolis, 
see Smith p. 245 sq., Pococke p. 75 
sq. , Chandler 229 sq., Arundell Seven 
Churches p. 79 sq., Hamilton p. 517 
sq.. Fellows Asia Minor p. 283 sq. 
For the travertine deposits see espe- 
cially the description and plates in 
Tchihatcheff P. i. p. 345, together with 
the views in Laborde (pi. xxxii — 
xxxviii), and Svoboda (photogr. 41 
— 47). Tchihatcheff repeatedly caUs 
the place Hieropolis ; but this form, 
though commonly used of other towns 
(see Steph. Byz. s. v. 'Iepa7r6Xts, Leake 
Num. Hell. p. 67), appears not to occur 
as a designation of the city on the 
Lycus, which seems always to be writ- 
ten Hierapolis. The citizens however 
are sometimes called 'lepoiroXirM on 
the coins. 

The modern name is given different- 
ly by travellers. It is generally called 
Pambouk-Kalessi, i.e. 'cotton-castle,' 
supposed to allude to the appearance 
of the petrifactions, though cotton is 
grown in the neighbourhood (Hamilton 
I- P- 517)- So Smith, Pococke, Chand- 
ler, Arundell, Tchihatcheff, Wadding- 
ton, and others. M. Renan says 
' Tambouk, et non Pambouk, Kalessi ' 
[S. Paul p. 357). Laborde gives the 
word Tambouk in some places and 
Pambouk in others; and Leake says 
' Hierapolis, now called Tabuk-Kale 
or Pambuk-Kale ' (p. 252). 





when seen from a distance, with the loftier range of the 

Mesogis which overhangs the right bank of the Maeander 

almost from its source to its embouchure, and form with it 

the northern barrier to the view, as the Cadmus range does 

the southern, the broad valley stretching between. Thus 

Hierapolis may be said to lie over against Mesogis, as Laodicea 

lies over against Cadmus*. 

It is at Hierapolis that the remarkable physical features 

which distinguish the valley of the Lycus display themselves 

in the fullest perfection. Over the steep cliffs which support 

the plateau of the city, tumble cascades of pure white stone, 

the deposit of calcareous matter from the streams which, after 

traversing this upper level, are precipitated over the ledge 

into the plain beneath and assume the most fantastic shapes 

in their descent. At one time overhanging in cornices fringed 

with stalactites, at another hollowed out into basins or broken 

up with ridges, they mark the site of the city at a distance, 

glistening on the mountain-side like foaming cataracts frozen 

in the fall. 

But for the immediate history of St Paul's Epistles the 

relation to g^j-^j^ij^g beauty of the scenery has no value. It is not 

toiic his- probable that he had visited this district when the letters 
tory. . 

to the Colossians and Laodiceans were written. Were it 

otherwise, we can hardly suppose that, educated under widely 

different influences and occupied with deeper and more absorb- 


^ Strabo xiii. 4. 14 (p. 629) says 
inrep^aXovffi 5^ rrjv 'Meawylda-.-TrdXeis 
elffl TTphs fih t5 Meawyldi KaravTiKpv 
AaodiKeiai 'lepi, TroXts, k.t.X. He can- 
not mean that HierapoUs was situated 
immediately in or by the Mesogis (for 
the name does not seem ever to be ap- 
plied to the mountains between the 
Lycus and Mteander), but that with 
respect to Laodicea it stood over a- 
gainst the Mesogis, as I have explain- 
ed it in the text. The view in Laborde 
(pi. xxxix) shows the appearance of 
Hierapolis fi'om Laodicea. Straho 

had liimself visited the place and 
must have known how it was situated. 
Some modern travellers however (e. g. 
Chandler and Arundell) speak of the 
plateau of Hierapolis as part of the 
Mesogis. Steiger [Kolosser p. 33) 
gets over the difficulty by translating 
Strabo's words, 'near the Mesogis but 
on the opposite side (i.e. of the Mae- 
ander) is the Laodicean Hierapolis' 
(to distinguish it fi'om others of the 
name) ; but KaravTiKpii cannot be 
separated from AaodiKeias without 


ing thoughts, he would have shared the enthusiasm which this 
scenery inspires in the modern traveller. Still it will give 
a reality to our conceptions, if we try to picture to ourselves 
the external features of that city, which was destined before 
long to become the adopted home of Apostles and other 
personal disciples of the Lord, and to play a conspicuous part — 
second perhaps only to Ephesus — in the history of the Church 
during the ages immediately succeeding the Apostles. 

Like Laodicea, Hierapolis was at this time an important Hierapolis 
and a growing city, though not like Laodicea holding metro- watering- 
politan rank\ Besides the trade in dyed wools, which it P^^*^®' 
shared in common with the neighbouring towns, it had another 
source of wealth and prosperity peculiar to itself. The streams, 
to which the scenery owes the remarkable features already 
described, are endowed with valuable medicinal qualities, 
while at the same time they are so copious that the ancient 
city is described as full of self-made baths^. An inscription, 
still legible among the ruins, celebrates their virtues in heroic 
verse, thus apostrophizing the city : 

Hail, fairest soil in all broad Asia's realm; 
Hail, golden city, nymph divine, bedeck'd 
With flowing riLls, thy jewels ^ 

Coins of Hierapolis too are extant of various types, on which 
jEsculapius and Hygeia appear either singly or together*. 
To this fashionable watering-place, thus favoured by nature, 
seekers of pleasure and seekers of health alike were drawn. 

To the ancient magnificence of Hierapolis its extant ruins The mag- 
bear ample testimony. More favoured than Laodicea, it has of its 
not in its immediate neighbourhood any modern town or ^^°^* 
village of importance, whose inhabitants have been tempted 
to quarry materials for their houses out of the memorials of 

^ On its ecclesiastical title of me- evpd-qs irpocpepiffTaTOv oD5as aTravrt^jv, 
tropoKs, see below, p. 69. X'"'/""^, x/Ji^croTroXt'IepciTroXi, irorwaNu/i- 

2 Strabo 1. c. oxJto} 5' ecTTlv acpOovov <t>Qiv, vd/xaa-Lv, dyXati^cn, KeKacr/j-ivr}. 

rh irXfidos tov vSutos cjcrre 7; iroXis fiearr] * Mionnet iv. p. 297, 306, 307, 

Tuiv airro/xdruv ^oKaveiuv ia-rl. ib. Suppl. VII. p. 567 ; Waddington 

3 Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3909, 'AtriSos Voyage etc. p. 24. 



Its religi- 
ous wor- 

The Plu- 


its former greatness. Hence the whole plateau is covered with 
ruins, of which the extent and the good taste are equally re- 
markable; and of these the paliestra and the thermae, as 
might be expected, are among the more prominent. 

A city, which combined the pursuit of health and of 
gaiety, had fitly chosen as its patron deity Apollo, the god 
alike of medicine and of festivity, here worshipped especially 
as * Archegetes,' the Founder \ But more important, as illus- 
trating the religious temper of this Phrygian city, is another 
fact connected with it. In Hierapolis was a spot called the 
Plutonium, a hot well or spring, from whose narrow mouth 
issued a mephitic vapour immediately fatal to those who 
stood over the opening and inhaled its fumes. To the muti- 
lated priests of Cybele alone (so it was believed) an immunity 
was given from heaven, which freed them from its deadly 
effects "^ Indeed this city appears to have been a chief centre 
of the passionate mystical devotion of ancient Phrygia. But 
indications are not wanting, that in addition to this older 
worship religious rites were borrowed also from other parts 

1 Boeckh Corp. Iiixcr. 3905, 3906; 
Mionnet iv.pp. 297, 301, 307, ib. Suppl. 
VII. p. 568, 569, 570. In coins struck 
to commemorate alliances with other 
cities, Hierapolis is represented by 
Apollo Archegetes : Mionnet iv. p. 303, 
ib. Suppl. VII. 572, 573, 574; Wad- 
dington Voyage etc. p. 25; and see 
Eckhel III. p. 156. On the meaning 
of Archegetes, under which name 
Apollo was worshipped by other cities 
also, which regarded him as their 
founder, see Spanheim on CaUim. 
Hymn. Apoll. 57. 

2 Strabo 1. c. He himself had seen 
the phenomenon and was doubtful how 
to account for the immimity of these 
priests, etre deiq, ■n-povolq....dTe avTiSo- 
TOts Tial dvudjxeai tovtov avfi^aivovros. 
See also Plin. N. H. ii. 93 § 95 ' lo- 
cum. ..matris tantum magnaa sacerdoti 
innoxium.' Dion Cass. (Xiphil. ) Ixviii. 

27, who also witnessed the phenomenon, 
adds ov /jAjp /cat t7)v airiav avroO avvvofi- 
crai ^X'^i ^^y^ 5^ S, T€ eldov ws eldov Kal 
a ijKovffa ws iJKovffa. Ammian. Marc, 
xxiii. 6. 18 also mentions this mar- 
vel, but speaks cautiously, ' ut asse- 
runt quidam,' and adds 'quod qua 
causa eveniat, rationibus physicis per- 
mittatur.' Comp. Anthol. vii. p. 190 
Eif Tis diray^acrdat nh d/cm davdrov S' 
eindvjxd, i^ 'lepds TroXeoJS tpvxpbv ilScjp 
vUtoi; Stobaeus Eel. i. 34, p. 680. La- 
borde states (p. 83) that he discovered 
by experiment that the waters are 
sometimes fatal to animal life and 
sometimes perfectly harmless ; and if 
this be substautiated, we have a solu- 
tion of the marvel. Other modern 
travellers, who have visited the Pluto- 
nium, are Cockerell (Leake p. 342), 
and Svoboda. In Svoboda's work a 
chemical analysis of the waters is given. 


of the East, more especially from Egypt \ By the multitude 
of her temples Hierapolis established her right to the title of 
the 'sacred city/ which she bore'*. 

Though at this time we have no record of famous citizens The birth- 
at Hierapolis, such as graced the annals of Laodicea, yet a gene- Epictetus. 
ration or two later she numbered among her sons one nobler 
far than the rhetoricians and sophists, the millionaires and 
princes, of whom her neighbour could boast. The lame slave 
Epictetus, the loftiest of heathen moralists, must have been 
growing up to manhood when the first rumours of the Gospel 
reached his native city. Did any chance throw him across 
the path of Epaphras, who first announced the glad-tidings 
there ? Did he ever meet the great Apostle himself, while Epictetns 
dragging out his long captivity at Rome, or when after his tianity. 
release he paid his long-promised visit to the valley of the 
Lycus ? We should be glad to think that these two men met 
together face to face — the greatest of Christian, and the great- 
est of heathen preachers. Such a meeting would solve more 
than one riddle, A Christian Epictetus certainly was not : 
his Stoic doctrine and his Stoic morality are alike apparent ; 
but nevertheless his language presents some strange coinci- 
dences with the Apostolic writings, which would thus receive 
an explanation^. It must be confessed however, that of any 
outward intercourse between the Apostle and the philosopher 
history furnishes no hint, 

3, While the sites of Laodicea and Hierapolis are con- 3. Colos- 

spicuous, so that they were early identified by their ruins, Diffiraitv 

the same is not the case with CoLOSS^. Only within the ^^ '^?*^^- 

"^ mining its 

present generation has the position of this once famous city site. 

been ascertained, and even now it lacks the confirmation of any 

^ On a coin of Hierapolis, Pluto- where in this neighbourhood. At 

Serapis appears seated, while before Chonse (Golossas) is an inscription 

him stands Isis with a sistrum in her recording a vow to tliis deity ; Le Bas 

hand ; Waddington Voyage etc, p. 24, Asie Mineure inscr, 1693 b. 

See also Mionnet iv. pp. 296, 305 ; ^ Steph. Byz. s. v. dirb tov lepk ttoX- 

Leake Num. Hell. p. 66. \a ^x^'"- 

The worship of Serapis appears else- ^ See Philippians, p. 313 sq. 



inscription found in situ and giving the namei. Herodotus 
Subterra- states that in Colossse the river Ljcus disappears in a sub- 
nel of the terranean cave, emerging again at a distance of about five 
Lycus. stades^; and this very singular landmark — the underground 
passage of a stream for half a mile — might be thought to have 
placed the site of the city beyond the reach of controversy. 
But this is not the case. In the immediate neighbourhood of 
the only ruins which can possibly be identified with Colossae, 
no such subterranean channel has been discovered. But on the 
other hand the appearance of the river at this point suggests 
that at one time the narrow gorge through which it runs, as 
it traverses the ruins, was overarched for some distance with in- 
crustations of travertine, and that this natural bridge was broken 
up afterwards by an earthquake, so as to expose the channel 
of the stream ^ This explanation seems satisfactory. If it be 

^ See however a mutilated inscrip- 
tion (Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3956) with 
the letters. ..HNOON, found near Chonse. 

^ Herod, vii. 30 d.iriKiTo is KoXotrads, 
TToXiv /ieyd\T]i> ^pvylT]s, ev Ty Avkos tto- 
Ta/xbs es x'^'^/^^ 7^' iir^dWiiiv d(pavi^e- 
rai, lireira 5td. aradifov cIis irivTe fj.d- 
Xiffrd Kt) dvacpaivofMevos e/c5t5ot Kal ovtos 
es Toc Maiavopov. 

3 This is the explanation of Hamil- 
ton (i. p. 509 sq.), who (with the doubt- 
ful excei^tion of Laborde) has the merit 
of having first identified and described 
the site of Colossre. It stands on the 
Tchoruk Sd (Lycus) at the point where 
it is joined by two other streams, the 
Bounar Bashi Sli and the Ak-Sd. In 
confirmation of his opinion, Hamilton 
found a tradition in the neighbourhood 
that the river had once been covered 
over at this spot (p. 522). He followed 
the course of the Lycus for some dis- 
tance without finding any subterrane- 
an channel (p. 521 sq.). 

It is diificult to say whether the fol- 
lowing account in Strabo xii. 8 § 16 
(p. 578) refers to the Lycus or not; 

6pos KdSjjLos e| ov kuI 6 Aijkos pet km 
dWos ofiduvfios T(^ 6pei' to itX^oj' 5' 
OVTOS i>Trb yi]s pveis elr' dvaKiipas awi- 
ireaev els TaiiTo to?s dWois irora/jLoU, ^/t- 
<f>aivcov dp,a Kal to irdXvTprjTov t^s xw/3as 
KoL TO eCaeiffTov. If the Lycus is meant, 
may not (rwiireaev imply that this re- 
markable featm-e had changed before 
Strabo wi'ote ? 

Laborde (p. 103), who visited the 
place before Hamilton, though his ac- 
count was apparently not published 
till later, fixes on the same site for 
Colossae, but thinks that he has dis- 
covered the subterranean course of the 
Lycus, to which Herodotus refers, much 
higher up a stream, close to its source 
('a dix pas de cette soui'ce'), which he 
describes as ' a deux lieues au nord de 
ColossEe.' Yet in the same paragraph 
he says * Or il [Herodote, exact cice- 
rone] savait que le Lycus disparait 
pres de Colossce, ville considerable de 
la Phrygie' (the itahcs are his own). 
He apparently does not see the 
vast difference between his pres de 
Colossce thus widely interpreted and 


rejected, we must look for the underground channel, not within 

the city itself, as the words of Herodotus strictly interpreted 

require, but at some point higher up the stream. In either 

case there can be little doubt that these are the ruins of 

Coloss£B. The fact mentioned by Pliny \ that there is in this Petrifying 

,., ,.,. . -oil •■ stream. 

city a river which turns brick into stone, is satislied by a side 

stream flowing into the Lycus from the north, and laying 

large deposits of calcareous matter ; though in this region, as 

we have seen, such a phenomenon is very far from rare. The 

site of Colossse then, as determined by these considerations, lies 

two or three miles north of the present town of Chonos, the 

mediaeval Chonse, and some twelve miles east of Laodicea. 

The Lycus traverses the site of the ruins, dividing the city 

into two parts, the necropolis standing on the right or northern 

bank, and the town itself on the left. 

Commanding the approaches to a pass in the Cadmus range. Its ancient 

and standing on a great high-way communicating between ^^^^ ^^^^ 

Eastern and Western Asia, Colossae at an early date appears 

as a very important place. Here the mighty host of Xerxes 

halted on its march against Greece ; it is mentioned on this 

occasion as 'a great city of Phrygia^' Here too Cyrus remained 

seven days on his daring enterprise which terminated so 

fatally ; the Greek captain, who records the expedition, speaks 

of it as 'a populous city, prosperous and great^' But after 

this time its glory seems to wane. The political supremacy 

the precise iv ry of Herodotus himself. very confused and it is not clear 
Obviously no great reliance can be whether he has fixed on the right site 
placed on the accuracy of a writer, for CoIosssb ; but it bears testimony to 
who treats his authorities thus. The the existence of two subterranean 
subterranean stream which Laborde coixrses of rivers, though neither of 
saw, and of which he gives a view them is close enough to the city to 
(pi. xl), may possibly be the pheno- satisfy Herodotus' description, 
menonto which Herodotus alludes; but ^ Plin. N. H. xxxi. 2 § 20. This is 
if so, Herodotus has expressed himself the Ai-Sti, which has strongly petrify- 
very carelessly. On the whole Hamil- ing qualities. 

ton's solution seems much more proba- * Herod, vii. 30. See p. 14, note 2. 

ble. See however Anatolica p. 1 1 7 sq. ^ Xen. Anab. i. 2. 6 e^eXavvei Sid 4>/)u- 

Arundell's account (Seven Churches ylas...eb KoXoaaas, ttoKiv olKovixivT}i', 

p. 98 sq., Asia Minor p. 160 sq.) is evdal/iova Kal fieydXTji'. 


axid later of Laodicea and the growing popularity of Hierapolis gradu- 
ally drain its strength ; and Strabo, writing about two genera- 
tions before St Paul, describes it as a 'small town^' in the 
district of which Laodicea was the capital. We shall there- 
fore be prepared to find that, while Laodicea and Hierapolis 
both hold important places in the early records of the Church, 
Colossse disappears wholly from the pages of history. Its com- 
parative insignificance is still attested by its ruins, which are 
few and meagre^ while the vast remains of temples, baths, 
theatres, aqueducts, gymnasia, and sepulchres, strewing the 
extensive sites of its more fortunate neighbours, still bear wit- 
ness to their ancient prosperity and magnificence. It is not 
even mentioned by Ptolemy, though his enumeration of towns 
includes several inconsiderable places*. Without doubt Colossse 
was the least important church to which any epistle of St Paul 
is addressed. 
Uncertain And perhaps also we may regard the variation in the 
grapbyof Orthography of the name as another indication of its com- 
the name, parative obscurity and its early extinction. Are we to write 
Colossce or Colassce? So far as the evidence goes, the con- 
clusion would seem to be that, while Colossas alone occurs 
during the classical period and in St Paul's time, it was after- 
wards supplanted by Colassse, when the town itself had either 
disappeared altogether or was already passing out of notice*. 

1 iroKicTixa, Strabo xii. 8. 13 (p. 576). v. 28, 29 § 29), so that only decayed 

Plin. 2^. H. V. 32. § 41 writes 'Plirygia and third-rate towns remain. The 

...oppida ibi celeberrima prater jam Aucyra here mentioned is not the 

dicta, Ancyra, Andria, Celanse, Colos- capital of Galatia, but a much smaller 

em,' etc. The commentators, referring Phrygian town. 

to this passage, overlook the words * Laborde p. 102 'De cette grande 

' prater jam dicta, ' and represent Pliny c^l^brit^ de Colossae il ne reste presque 

as calling ColossEe 'oppidum celeberri- rien : ce sont des substinictions sans 

mum.' Not unnaturally they find it suite, des fragments sans grandeur; 

difficult to reconcile this expression les restes d'un theatre de mediocre 

with Strabo's statement. But in fact dimension, une acropole sans hai-di- 

Pliny has already exhausted all the esse,' etc. ; comp. Anatolica^. 115. 

considerable towns, Hierapolis, Lao- ' Geogr. v. 2. 

dicea, Apamea, etc., and even much * All Greek writers till some cen- 

iess important places than these (see turies after the Christian era write it 



Considered ethnologicallj, these three cities are generall}' Ethnologi- 
regarded as belonging to Phrygia. But as they are situated tions of 
on the western border of Phrygia, and as the frontier line ^ittes 
separating Phrygia from Lydia and Caria was not distinctly 

Kokoffffai: so Herod, vii. 30, Xen. 
Anab. i. 1. 6, Strabo xii. 8. 13, Diod. 
xiv. 80, Polyasn. Strat. viL 16. i ; 
though in one or more mss of some 
of these authors it is written KoXauo-at, 
showing the tendency of later scribes. 
Colossce is also the universal form in 
Latin writers. The coins moreover, even 
as late as the reign of Gordian (a.d. 238 
— 244) when they ceased to be struck, 
universally have KOAOCCHNOI (or KO- 
AoCHNOl); Mionnet iv. p. 267 sq. : 
see Babington Numismatic Chronicle 
New series ni. p. i sq., 6. In BQe- 
rocles [Synecd. p. 666, Wessel.) and 
in the Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 46) 
'KdXaccal seems to be the original read- 
ing of the text, and in later Byzan- 
tine writers this form is common. If 
Prof. Babington (p. 3) were right in 
supposing that it is connected with 
KoXoffcos, the question of the correct 
spelling might be regarded as settled ; 
but in a Phrygian city over which so 
many Eastern nations swept in suc- 
cession, who shall say to what lan- 
guage the name belonged, or what are 
its affinities ? 

Thus, judging from classical usage, 
we should say that KoXoo-crat was the 
old form and that HoKacraal did not 
supplant it till some time after St 
Paul's age. This view is confirmed 
by a review of the authorities for the 
different readings in the New Testa- 

In the opening of the epistle (i. i) 
the authorities for iv Kokoaaah are 
overwhelming. It is read by XBDFGL 
(A is obliterated here and C is want- 
ing) ; and in the Old Latin, Vulgate, 
and Armenian Versions. On the other 


hand iv KoXa<ro-a?s is read by KP. 17. 
37. 47, and among the versions by the 
Memphitic and the Philoxenian Syriac 
{SDOSOT^\o.n , though the marg. 
gives KOAccAlc). In the Peshito also 
the present reading represents KoXaa- 
(Tah, but as the vowel was not express- 
ed originally and depends on the later 
pointing, its authority can hardly be 
quoted. The Thebaic is wanting here. 

In the heading of the epistle how- 
ever there is considerably more au- 
thority for the form in a. KoXao-o-aets 
is the reading of AB* KP . 37 (KoXa- 
aaeis) . 47. C is wanting here, but has 
KoXa(T(Toets in the subscription. On 
the other hand KoXoo-cafis (or KoXoo-- 
aaii) appears in \fl& (according to 
Tregelles, but B^ Tisch.; see his introd. 
p. xxxxviii) DFG (but G has left Ko- 
Xa<r(7a«y in the heading of one page, 
and KoXaocraets in another) L. 17 (Ko- 
Xouoeis), in the Latin Version, and in 
the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac. 
The readings of both Peshito and 
Philoxenian (text) here depend on the 
vocalisation ; and those of other ver- 
sions are not recorded. In the sub- 
scription the preponderance of au- 
thority is even more favourable to 

Taking into account the obvious 
tendency which there would be in 
scribes to make the title wpbs KoXocr- 
craeh or Trpos KoXacrcraeii conform to 
the opening iv KoKocraais or iv KoXaa- 
ffals, as shown in G, we seem to 
arrive at the conclusion that, while iv 
KoXoffffois was indisputably the original 
reading in the opening, npbs KoXacr- 
caeis was probably the earher reading 
in the title. If so, the title must have 






traced, this designation is not persistent \ Thus Laodicea is 
sometimes assigned to Caria, more rarely to Lydia ^; and again, 
Hierapolis is described as half Lydian, half Phrygian ^ On 
the other hand I have not observed that Colossse is ever re- 
garded as other than Phrygian*, partly perhaps because the 
notices relating to it belong to an earlier date when these 
several names denoted political as well as ethnological divi- 
sions, and their limits were definitely marked in consequence, 
but chiefly because it lies some miles to the east of the other 
cities, and therefore farther from the doubtful border land. 

Phrygia however ceased to have any political significance, 
when this country came under the dominion of the Romans. 
Politically speaking, the three cities with the rest of the 

been added at a somewhat later date ; 
which is not improbable. 

Connected with this question is the 
variation in the adjectival form, -rjvdi 
or -o€i;j. Parallels to this double ter- 
mination occur in other words ; e. g. 
AoKifjLTjvds, AoKi/xeis; Aao5iK7]i'6s, Aoo- 

v6s, liayaXaffcxevs, etc. The coins, while 
they universally exhibit the form in o, 
are equally persistent in the termina- 
tion -■i]v6s, KOAOCCHNCON ; and it is 
curious that to the form KoXocra-rji'oi 
in Strabo xii. 8 § i6 (p. 578) there is 
a various reading KoXaaaaeis. Thus, 
though there is no necessary con- 
nexion between the two, the termina- 
tion •Tiv6s seems to go with the form, 
and the termination -aevs with the a 

For the above reasons I have written 
confidently in KoXoffcra'is in the text, 
and with more hesitation Trpbs KoXacr- 
ffaels in the superscription. 

1 Strabo, xiii 4. 12 (p. 628) to. S' 
i^TJs eirl TO. vdria fiipt) roh roTrots tovtoh 
ifMirXoKai ?X«' M^X/" 'rpis rbv Havpov, 
uare koX to. ^pvyia Kal rb. KapiKo. Kal 
ra AvSia Kal ?« rd twv MuaSiv dvcydid- 
Kpira etvai itapOLTrLirTOVTa eii AXXtjXo* 

els 5^ TTjv ffvyxvcTiv TavTrjv 01) fiiKph, 
avWafj.pd.vei rb toi)j 'Pwyuofous /utj Kara 
<pv\a duXeiv avrovs k.t.X. 

2 To Phrygia, Strabo xii. 8. 13 (p. 
576), Polyb. V. 57, and so generally; 
to Caria, Orac. Sibyll. iii. 472 Kapdv 
dyXaov dcrrv, Ptol. V. 2, Philostr. Vit. 
Soph. L 25 (though in the context 
Philostratus adds that at one time ry 
^pvylg, ^weTdrrero) ; to Lydia, Steph. 
Byz. s. V. On the coins the city is 
sometimes represented as seated be- 
tween two female figures ({)pYriA and 
KApiA ; Eckhel iii. p. 160, comp. 
Mionnet iv. p. 329. From its situation 
on the confines of the three countries 
Laodicea seems to have obtained the 
svirname Trimitaria or Trimetaria, by 
which it is sometimes designated in 
later times : see below, and comp. 
Wesseling, Itin. p. 665. 

* Steph. Byz. s. v. says fiera^v ^pv 
ytas Kal AvSias TrdXtj. But generally 
Hierapolis is assigned to Phrygia : e. g. 
Ptol. V. 2, Vitruv. viii. 3 § 10. 

* C0I0SS8B is assigned to Phrygia in 
Herod, vii. 30, Xen. Anab. i. 2. 6, 
Strabo xii. 8. 13, Diod. xiv. 80, Plin. 
N. H. \. ^2 % 4{, Polyaen. Strat. vii. 
16. I. 


Cibyratic union belonged at this time to Asia, the procon- 
sular province \ As an Asiatic Church accordingly Laodicea 
is addressed in the Apocalyptic letter. To this province they 
had been assigned in the first instance ; then they were handed 
over to Cilicia ^; afterwards they were transferred and retrans- 
ferred from the one to the other ; till finally, before the Chris- 
tian era, they became a permanent part of Asia, their original 
province. Here they remained, until the close of the third 
century, when a new distribution of the Roman empire was 
made, and the province of Phrygia Prima, afterwards called 
Pacatiana, was created with Laodicea as its capitaP. 

The Epistle to the Colossians supposes a powerful Jewish important 
colony in Laodicea and the neighbourhood. We are not how- settlement 

ever left to draw this inference from the epistle alone, but the "^.t^f 

■^ _ neignbour- 

fact is established by ample independent testimony. When, hood, 
with the insolent licence characteristic of Oriental kings, An- 
tiochus the Great transplanted two thousand Jewish families 
from Babylonia and Mesopotamia into Lydia and Phrygia *, Colony of 
we can hardly doubt that among the principal stations of these ^^^ Great! 
new colonists would be the two most thriving cities of Phrygia, 
which were also the two most important settlements of the 
Syrian kings, Apamea and Laodicea, the one founded by 
his grandfather Antiochus the First, the other by his father 
Antiochus the Second. If the commercial importance of Apa- 
mea at this time was greater (for somewhat later it was reck- 
oned second only to Ephesus among the cities of Asia Minor 

^ After the yeaj b. c. 49 tliey seem sense, as applying to the Eoman pro- 

to have been permanently attached to vince. 

'Asia': before that time they are 2 cic. ad Fam. xiii. 67 'ex pro- 
bandied about between Asia and Ci- vincia mea Ciliciensi, cui scis rpeis 
licia. These alternations are traced by 5tot/c?jo-€ts Asiaticas [i. e. Cibyraticam, 
Bergmann de Asia provincia (Berlin, Apamensem, Synnadensem] attributas 
1846) and in Philologus 11. 4 (1847) fuisse'; ad Att. y. 21 'mea expectatio 
p. 64isq. See Ma.rqaa.Tdt Rom. Staats- Asiae nostrarum dioecesium ' and 'in 
vertoalt. i. p. 176 sq. Laodicea is hac mea Asia.' See also above, p. 7, 
assigned to 'Asia' in Boeckh Corp. notes 2, 3. 
Inscr. 6512, 6541, 6626. ^ Hierocles Synecd. p. 664 sq. (Wes- 

The name 'Asia' will be used sel.): see Marquardt 1. c. p. 190. 

throughout this chapter in its political * Joseph. Antiq. xii. 3, 4. 



tions of 

as a centre of trade), the political rank of Laodicea stood 
higher \ When mention is made of Lydia and Phrygia^ 
this latter city especially is pointed out by its position, for it 
stood near the frontier of the two countries. A Jewish settle- 
ment once established, the influx of their fellow-countrymen 
would be rapid and continuous. Accordingly under the Roman 
domination we find them gathered here in very large numbers. 
When Flaccus the propraetor of Asia (B.C. 62), who was afterwards 
accused of maladministration in his province and defended by 
Cicero, forbade the contributions of the Jews to the temple- 
worship and the consequent exportation of money to Palestine, 
he seized as contraband not less than twenty pounds weight in 
gold in the single district of which Laodicea was the capital ^. 
Calculated at the rate of a half-shekel for each man, this sum 
represents a population of more than eleven thousand adult 
freemen*: for women, children, and slaves were exempted. It 
must be remembered however, that this is only the sum which 

1 Strabo xii. 8. 13 (p. 576) elra 
*Aird/Ji€ia r] Ki^ojrbs Xeyo^ivr] /cai Aao- 
diK€ia atirep elffl fj-iyiarat. tCjv Kara. Trjv 
^pvyiav iroXewv. Below § 15 (p. 577) 
he says 'Atraixeia 8' icrrlv ifiirdpiov fxiya 
TTJs l5Lw Xeyofiivrjs 'AaLas devrepedov 
ixera ttjp "^(peffov. The relative im- 
portance of Apamea and Laodicea two 
or three generations earher than St 
Paul may be inferred from the notices 
in Cicero ; but there is reason for 
thinking that Laodicea afterwards grew 
more rapidly than Apamea. 

* In Josephus 1. c. the words are t4 
KOTO. TTiv ^pvyiav Kal Avdlav, the two 
names being under the vinculum of 
the one article : while immediately 
afterwards Lydia is dropped and Phry- 
gia alone named, vipi^ai. tlvcls ... ets 

3 Cic. ;pro Place. 28 ' Sequitur auri 
ilia invidia Judaici...Quum aurimi Ju- 
dffiorum nomine quotannis ex Italia et 
ex omnibus provinciis Hierosolyma 

exportari soleret, Flaccus sanxit edicto 
ne ex Asia exportari Uceret...multitu- 
diuem Judseorum, flagrantem nou- 
numquam in concionibus, pro repub- 
lica contemnere gravitatis summcB 
fuit...Apame£e manifesto comprehen- 
sum ante pedes prstoris in foro ex- 
pensum est auri pondo centum paullo 
minus... Laodiceae viginti pondo paullo 

Josephus {Antiq. xiv. 7. 2), quoting 
the words of Strabo, TriiJ.\j/a.$ bi MiOpi- 
SciTTjs eli Kw Aa^e...Td xtDf 'lovdaluv 
dKTasocna roKavTa, explains this enor- 
mous sum as composed of the temple- 
offerings of the Jews which they sent 
to Cos for safety out of the way of 

■* This calculation supposes (i) That 
the half-skekel weighs iiogr.; (2) That 
the Boman pound is 5050 gr.: (3) 
That the relation of gold to silver was 
at this time as 12 : i. This last esti- 
mate is possibly somewhat too high. 


the Roman officers succeeded in detecting and confiscating ; 
and that therefore the whole Jewish population would pro- 
bably be much larger than this partial estimate implies. The 
amount seized at Apamea, the other great Phrygian centre, 
was five times as large as this\ Somewhat later we have a other 
document purporting to be a decree of the Laodiceans, in which 
they thank the Roman Consul for a measure granting to 
Jews the liberty of observing their sabbaths and practising 
other rites of their religion^; and though this decree is pro- 
bably spurious, yet it serves equally well to show that at this 
time Laodicea was regarded as an important centre of the 
dispersion in Asia Minor. To the same effect may be quoted 
the extravagant hyperbole in the Talmud, that when on a cer- 
tain occasion an insurrection of the Jews broke out in Csesarea 
the metropolis of Cappadocia, which brought down upon their 
heads the cruel vengeance of king Sapor and led to a mas- 
sacre of 12,000, 'the wall of Laodicea was cloven with the 
sound of the harpstrings ' in the fatal and premature mer- 
riment of the insurgents'. This place was doubtless singled 

1 The coinage of Apamea affords a stated to have rested there. Whether 

striMng example of Judaic influence this Apamea obtained its distinctive 

at a later date. On coins struck at surname of Cibotus, the Ark or Chest, 

this place in the reigns of Severus, from its physical features or from its 

Macrinus, and the elder Philip, an position as the centre of taxation and 

ark is represented floating on the finance for the district, or fi-om some 

waters. Within are a man and a vro- other cause, it is difficult to say. In 

man : on the roof a bird is perched ; any case this surname might naturally 

while in the air another bird ap- suggest to those acquainted with the 

preaches bearing an ohve-branch in Old Testament a connexion with the 

its claws. The ark bears the inscrip- deluge of Noah ; but the idea would 

tion Nooe. Outside are two standing not have been adopted in the coinage 

figures, a man and a woman (ap- of the place without the pressure of 

parently the same two who have been strong Jewish influences. On these 

represented within the ark), with their coins see Eckhel Doctr. Num. Vet. iii. 

hands raised as in the attitude of p. 132 sq., and the paper of Sir F. 

prayer. The connexion of the ark Madden in the Numismatic Chronicle 

of Noah with Apamea is explained by N. S. vi. p. 173 sq. (1866), where they 

a passage in one of the SibyUine are figured. 
Oracles (i. 261 sq.), where the mouu- ^ Joseph. Ant. xiv. 10. 21. 

tain overhanging Apamea is identified ' Talm. Babl. 3Ioed Katon 26 a, quot- 

with Ararat, and the ark [ki.§wtos) is ed by Neubauer, La Geographie du 



tions of 

out, because it had a peculiar interest for the Jews, as one 
of their chief settlements \ It will be remembered also, that 
Phrygia is especially mentioned among those countries which 
furnished their quota of worshippers at Jerusalem, and were 
thus represented at the baptism of the Christian Church on 
the great day of Pentecost **. 

Mention has already been made of the traffic in dyed wools, 
which formed the staple of commerce in the valley of the 
Lycus ^ It may be inferred from other notices that this branch 
of trade had a peculiar attraction for the Jews *. If so, their 
commercial instincts would constantly bring fresh recruits to a 
colony which was already very considerable. But the neighbour- 
hood held out other inducements besides this. EQerapolis, the 
gay watering place, the pleasant resort of idlers, had charms 
for them, as well as Laodicea the busy commercial city. At 
least such was the complaint of stricter patriots at home. 
' The wines and the baths of Phrygia,' writes a Talmud ist bit- 
terly, * have separated the ten tribes from Israel ^' 
Talmud p. 319, though he seems to dicea on the Lycus, to a Jewish 

have misunderstood the expression 
quoted in the text, of which he gives 
the sense, 'Cette vUle tremblait au 
bruit des fleches qu'on avait tiroes.' 

It is probably this same Laodicea 
which is meant in another Talmudical 
passage, Talm. Babl. Baba Metziah 
84 a (also quoted by Neubauer, p. 31 1), 
in which Elijah appeariag to E. Ish- 
mael ben E. Jose, says ' Thy father 
fled to Asia; flee thou to Laodicea,' 
where Asia is supposed to mean 

^ An inscription foimd at Eome in 
the Jewish cemetery at the Porta For- 
tuensis (Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 9916) 
runs thus; €N0A . KITe . AMMIA . 
[eJioyAeA . <\no . AaAikiac. k.t.x., 

i. e. ifda Kelrai 'Afifxia 'lovdaia dird 
AaodiKeias. Probably Laodicea on the 
Lycus is meant. Perhaps also we 
may refer another inscription (6478), 
which mentions one Trypho from Lao- 


^ Acts ii. 10. 

' See p. 4. 

* Acts xvi. 14. Is there an allusion 
to this branch of trade in the message 
to the Church of Laodicea, Eev. iii. 1 7 
oi'K olSaj oVt ffii el 6...yviJ.vbs' (Tvfi^ov- 
Xfuco aoi cLyopdaai ... i/j.aTia XeuxA if a 
vepij3d.\ri, K.T.X. ? The only other of the 
seven messages, which contains an 
allusion to the white garments, is ad- 
dressed to the Church of Sardis, where 
again there might be a reference to the 
^dufj.a "ZapSi-avLKov (Arist. Pax 11 74) 
Acharn. 112) and the (poLviKidei ^ap5ia- 
vLKai (Plato Com. in Athen. 11. p. 48 e) 
of the comic poets. 

5 Talm. Babl. Sabbath 147 b, quoted 
by Neubauer La Geographic da Talmud 
p. 317: see 'Wiesnei Schol. zum Babyl. 
Talm. p. 259 sq., and p. 207 sq. On 
the word translated ' baths, ' see Kapo- 
port's Erech Millin p. 113, col. i. 


There is no ground for supposing that, when St Paul wrote St Paul 

his Epistle to the Colossians, he had ever visited the church visited the 

in which he evinces so deep an interest. Whether we ex- "^-f'""^ 

^ when he 

amine the narrative in the Acts, or whether we gather up wrote, 
the notices in the epistle itself, we find no hint that he had 
ever been in this neighbourhood ; but on the contrary some 
expressions indirectly exclude the supposition of a visit to the 

It is true that St Luke more than once mentions Phrygia What is 
as lying on St Paul's route or as witnessing his labours. ^IrygiJia 
But Phrygia was a vague and comprehensive term ; nor can ^* ^^^ ^ 
we assume that the valley of the Lycus was intended, unless 
the direction of his route or the context of the narrative dis- 
tinctly points to this south-western corner of Phrygia. In 
neither of the two passages, where St Paul is stated to have 
travelled through Phrygia, is this the case. 

I. On his second missionary journey, after he has revisited x.StPaul's 
and confirmed the churches of Pisidia and Lycaonia founded phrygiaon 

on his first visit, he passes through * the Phryoian and Galatian ^^? second 

' i^ o JO mission- 

country \' I have pointed out elsewhere that this expression ary jour- 
must be used to denote the region which mis^ht be called in- 
differently Phrygia or Galatia — the land which had originally 
belonged to the Phrygians and had afterwards been colonised 
by the Gauls ; or the parts of either country which lay in the 
immediate neighbourhood of this debatable ground ^ This 
region lies considerably north and east of the valley of the 
Lycus. Assuming that the last of the Lycaonian and Pisidian 
towns at which St Paul halted was Antioch, he would not 
on any probable supposition approach nearer to Colossse than 
Apamea Cibotus on his way to 'the Phrygian and Galatian 
country,' nor indeed need he have gone nearly so far west- 

^ Acts xvi. 6 T7]v ^pvylav kuI TaXa- iii. i t^s 'Irovpalas Kal Tpaxwj'irtSos 

TtKTjJ' x'^P''") the correct reading. For X'^pas, Acts xiii. i^'AvTiox^iai'TTJi'IlKxi- 

this use of ^pvyiav as an adjective Slav (the correct reading), 
comp. Mark i. 5 Traua 7} 'Iov5a/a X'^P'^t ^ See Galatians, p. 18 sq., •22. 

Joh. iii. 22 els tt^v 'lov^alav yrfV, Luke 


ward as this. And again on his departure from this region 
he journeys by Mysia to Troas, leaving ' Asia ' on his left hand 
and Bithynia on his right. Thus the notices of his route con- 
spire to show that his path on this occasion lay far away from 
the valley of the Lycus. 
2. Hisvisit 2. But if he was not brought into the neighbourhood 
third mis- <^^ ColosssB on his second missionary journey, it is equally 

Bionary improbable that he visited it on his third. So far as regards 
journey. '■ ° 

Asia Minor, he seems to have confined himself to revisiting 
the churches already founded ; the new ground which he broke 
was in Macedonia and Greece. Thus when we are told that 
during this third journey St Paul after leaving Antioch ' passed 
in order through the Galatian country and Phrygia, confirm- 
ing all the disciples \' we can hardly doubt that ' the Galatian 
country and Phrygia ' in this latter passage denotes essentially 
the same region as 'the Phrygian and Galatian country' in 
the former. The slight change of expression is explained by 
the altered direction of his route. In the first instance his 
course, as determined by its extreme limits — Antioch in Pisidia 
its starting-point, and Alexandria Troas its termination — 
would be northward for the first part of the way, and thus 
would lie on the border land of Phrygia and Galatia ; whereas 
on this second occasion, when he was travelling from Antioch 
in Syria to Ephesus, its direction would be generally from 
east to west, and the more strictly Galatian district would 
be traversed before the Phrygian, If we suppose him to leave 
Galatia at Pessinus on its western border, he would pass 
along the great highway — formerly a Persian and at this 
time a Koman road — by Synnada and Sardis to Ephesus, 
traversing the heart of Phrygia, but following the valleys of 
the Hermus and Cayster, and separated from the Maeander 
and Lycus by the high mountain ranges which bound these 
latter to the north ^ 

* Acts xviii. 23. St Paul and St Lake is not the country 

^ M. Eenan {Saint Paw f pp. 51 sq., properly so called, but that they are 

126, 313) maintains that the Galatia of speaking of the Chui'ches of Pisidiau 



Thus St Luke's nan-ative seems to exclude any visit of ^ije infer- 

•' en ce from 

the Apostle to the Churches of the Lycus before his first 

Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, 
which lay witMa the Roman province of 
Galatia. This interpretation of Gala- 
tia necessarily affects his view of St 
Paul's routes (pp. 126 sq., 331 sq.) ; and 
he supposes the Apostle on his thkd 
missionary journey to have passed 
through the vaUey of the Lycus, with- 
out however remaining to preach the 
Gospel there (pp. 331 sq., 356 sq., 362). 
As Antioch in Pisidia would on this 
hypothesis be the farthest church in 
' Galatia and Phrygia ' which St Paul 
visited, his direct route from that city 
to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 23, xix. i) 
would naturally he by this valley. I 
have already {Galatians pp. 18 sq., 22) 
stated the serious objections to which 
this interpretation of ' Galatia ' is open, 
and (if I mistake not) have answered 
most of M. Eenan's arguments by an- 
ticipation. But, as this interpretation 
nearly affects an important point in 
the history of St Paul's dealings with 
the Colossians, it is necessary to sub- 
ject it to a closer examination. 

Without stopping to enquire whe- 
ther this view is reconcilable with St 
Paul's assertion (Col. ii. i) that these 
churches in the Lycus valley ' had not 
seen his face in the flesh,' it will ap- 
pear (I think) that M. Eenan's argu- 
ments are in some cases untenable and 
in others may be turned against him- 
self. The three heads under which 
they may be conveniently considered 
are : (i) The use of the name ' Galatia ' ; 
(ii) The itinerary of St Paul's travels ; 
(iii) The historical notices in the Epis- 
tle to the Galatians. 

(i) On the first point, M. Eenan 
states that St Paul was in the habit of 
using the official name for each dis- 
trict, and therefore called the country 
which extends from Antioch in Pisidia 

to Derbe ' Galatia,' supporting this 
view by the Apostle's use of Asia, 
Macedonia, and Achaia (p. 51). The 
answer is that the names of these 
elder provinces had very generally su- 
perseded the local names, but this was 
not the case vrith the other districts of 
Asia Minor where the provinces had 
been formed at a comparatively late 
date. The usage of St Luke is a 
good criterion. He also speaks of 
Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia; but at 
the same time his narrative abounds 
in historical or ethnographical names 
which have no official import; e.g. 
Lycaonia, Mysia, PamphyUa, Pisidia, 
Phrygia. Where we have no evidence, 
it is reasonable to assume that St 
Paul's usage was conformable to St 
Luke's. And again, if we consider 
St Luke's account alone, how insu- 
perable are the difficulties which this 
view of Galatia creates. The part of 
Asia Minor, with which we are imme- 
diately concerned, was comprised offi- 
cially in the provinces of Asia and 
Galatia. On M. Eenan's showing, St 
Luke, after calling Antioch a city of 
Pisidia (xiii. 14) and Lystra and Derbe 
cities of Lycaonia (xiv. 6), treats all 
the three, together with the interme- 
diate Iconium, as belonging to Galatia 
(xvi. 6, xviii. 23). He explains the in- 
consistency by saying that in the former 
case the narrative proceeds in detail, 
in the latter in masses. But if so, 
why should he combine a historical 
and ethnological name Phrygia with 
an official name Galatia in the same 
breath, when the two are different in 
kind and cannot be mutually exclusive? 
'Galatia and Asia,' would be inteUigi- 
ble on this supposition, but not 'Ga- 
latia and Phrygia.' Moreover the vei-y 
form of the expression in xvi. 6, ' the 



St Luke's Roman captivity 

narrative -^ •' 

And this inference is confirmed by St Paul's 
own languacfe to the Colossians. 

Phrygian and Galatian country' (ac- 
cording to the correct reading which 
M. Kenan neglects), appears in its stu- 
died vagueness to exclude the idea that 
St Luke means the province of Gala- 
tia, whose boundaries were precisely 
marked. And even granting that the 
Christian communities of Lycaonia 
and Pisidia could by a straining of 
language be called Chm-ches of Gala- 
tia, is it possible that St Paul would 
addi-ess them personally as ' ye fool- 
ish Galatians' (Gal. iii i)? Such lan- 
guage would be no more appropriate 
than if a modem preacher in a fami- 
liar address were to appeal to the 
Poles of Warsaw as *ye Kussians,' or 
the Hungarians of Pesth as 'ye Aus- 
trians,' or the Lrish of Cork as *ye 

(Li) La the itinerary of St Paul 
several points require consideration. 
(a) M. Eenan lays stress on the fact 
that in Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23, the order 
in which the names of Phrygia and 
Galatia occur is inverted. I seem to 
myself to have explained this satisfac- 
torily in the text. He appears to be 
unaware of the correct reading in xvi. 
6, Trjv ^pvyiav Kal Ta\aTiKr]ir x'^P"-^ 
(see Galatiaiis p. 12), though it has an 
important bearing on St Paul's proba- 
ble route. (6) He states that Troas 
was St Paul's aim (Tobjectif de Saint 
Paul') in the one case (xvi. 6), and 
Ephesus in the other (xviii. 23) : con- 
sequently he argues that Galatia, pro- 
perly so called, is inconceivable, as 
there was no reason why he should 
have made ' this strange detour to- 
wards the north. ' The answer is that 
Troas was not his 'objectif ' in the 
fii'st instance, nor Ephesus in the 
second. On the first occasion St Luke 
states that the Apostle set out on his 

journey with quite different intentions, 
but that after he had got well to the 
north of Asia Minor he was driven by a 
series of divine intimations to proceed 
first to Troas and thence to cross over 
into Europe (see Philippians p. 48). 
This narrative seems to me to imply 
that he starts for his further travels 
from some point in the western part 
of Galatia proper. When he comes to 
the borders of Mysia, he designs bear- 
ing to the left and preaching in Asia ; 
but a divine voice forbids him. He 
then purposes diverging to the right 
and delivering his message in Bithynia ; 
but the same unseen power checks him 
again. Thus he is driven forward, and 
passes by Mysia to the coast at Troas 
(Acts xvi. 6—8). Here all is plain. 
But if we suppose him to start, not from 
some town in Galatia proper such as 
Pessinus, but from Antioch in Pisidia, 
why should Bithynia, which would be 
far out of the way, be mentioned at 
aU ? On the second occasion, St Paul's 
primary object is to revisit the Gala- 
tian Churches which he had planted 
on the former jom-ney (xviii. 23), and 
it is not tiU after he has fulfilled this 
intention that he goes to Ephesus. 
(f) M. Eenan also calls attention to 
the difficulty of traversing 'the central 
steppe ' of Asia Minor. ' There was 
probably,' he says, 'at this epoch no 
route fi'om Iconium to Ancyra,' and in 
justification of this statement he re- 
fers to Penot, de Gal. Bom. prov. p. 
102, 103. Even so, there were regular 
roads from either Iconium or Antioch 
to Pessinus ; and this route would serve 
equally well. Moreover the Apostle, who 
was accustomed to 'perils of rivers, 
perils of robbers, perils in the wilder- 
ness ' (2 Cor. xi. 26), and who preferred 
walking from Troas to Assos (Acts xx. 



He represents his knowledge of their continued progress, borne out 
and even of their first initiation, in the truths of the Gospel, Paul's own 
as derived from the report of others. He describes himself ^^^°^- 

13) while his companions sailed, would 
not be deterred by any rough or un- 
frequented paths. But the facts ad- 
duced by Perrot do not lend them- 
selves to any such inference, nor does 
he himself draw it. He cites an in- 
scription of the year a. d. 82 which 
speaks of A. Caesennius GaUus, the 
legate of Domitian, as a great road- 
maker throughout the Eastern pro- 
vinces of Asia Minor, and he suggests 
that the existing remaias of a road be- 
tween Ancyra and Iconium may be 
part of this governor's work. Even if 
the suggestion be adopted, it is highly 
improbable that no road should have 
existed previously, when we consider 
the comparative facility of construct- 
ing a way along this line of country 
(Perrot p. 103) and the importance of 
such a direct route, (d) ' In the con- 
ception of the author of the Acts,' 
writes M. Eenan, 'the two journeys 
across Asia Minor are journeys of con- 
firmation and not of conversion (Acts 
XV. 36, 41, xvi. 5, 6, xviii. 23).' This 
statement seems to me to be only 
partially true. In both cases St Paul 
begins his tour by confirming churches 
already established, but in both he 
advances beyond this and breaks new 
ground. In the former he starts with 
the existing churches of Lycaonia and 
Pisidia and extends his labours to 
Galatia : in the latter he starts with 
the then existing churches of Galatia, 
and carries the Gospel into Macedonia 
and Achaia. This, so far as I can dis- 
cover, was his general rule. 

(iii) The notices in the Galatian 
Epistles, which appear to M. Eenan to 
favour his view, are these: (a) St Paul 
appears to have 'had intimate rela- 
tions with the Galatian Church, at 

least as intimate as with the Corinth- 
ians and Thessalonians,' whereas St 
Luke disposes of the Apostle's preaching 
in Galatia very summarily, unless the 
communities of Lycaonia and Pisidia 
be included. But the Galatian Epis- 
tle by no means evinces the same 
close and varied personal relations 
which we find in the letters to these 
other churches, more especially to the 
Corinthians. And again ; St Luke's 
history is more or less fragmentary. 
Whole years are sometimes dismissed 
in a few verses. The stay in Arabia 
which made so deep an impression on 
St Paul himself is not even mention- 
ed : the three months' sojourn in 
Greece, though doubtless full of stir- 
ring events, only occupies a single 
verse in the narrative (Acts xx. 3). 
St Luke appears to have joined St 
Paul after his visit to Galatia (xvi. 10); 
and there is no reason why he should 
have dwelt on incidents with which he 
had no direct acquaintance. (6) M. 
Eenan sees in the presence of emis- 
siiries from Jerusalem in the Galatian 
Churches an indication that Galatia 
proper is not meant. ' It is improba- 
ble that they would have made such a 
journey.' But why so? There were 
important Jewish settlements in Gala- 
tia proper {Galatians p. gsq.); there 
was a good road through Syria and 
CHicia to AjicjiSi{Itin. Anton, p. 205 sq., 
ItiJi. Hierosol. p. 575 sq. ed. Wessel.) ; 
and if we find such emissaries as far 
away from Jerusalem as Corinth (2 Cor. 
xi. 13, etc.), there is at least no impro- 
bability that they should have reached 
Galatia. (c) Lastly ; M. Eenan thinks 
that the mention of Barnabas (Gal. ii. 
I, 9, 13) implies that he was person 
ally known to the chuixhes addressed, 



as hearing of their faith in Christ and their love to the saints \ 
He recals the day when he first heard of their Christian pro- 
Silence of fession and zeaP. Though opportunities occur again and again 
where he would naturally have referred to his direct personal 
relations with them, if he had been their evangelist, he abstains 
from any such reference. He speaks of their being instructed 
in the Gospel, of his own preaching the Gospel, several times 
in the course of the letter, but he never places the two in 
any direct connexion, though the one reference stands in the 
immediate neighbourhood of the other ^ Moreover, if he had 
actually visited Colossse, it must appear strange that he should 
not once allude to any incident occurring during his sojourn 
there, for this epistle would then be the single exception to 
his ordinary practice. And lastly ; in one passage at least, if 
interpreted in its natural sense, he declares that the Colossians 
were personally unknown to him: *I would have you know,' 
he writes, ' how great a conflict I have for you and them that 
are in Laodicea and as many as have not seen my face in the 

and therefore points to Lycaonia and 
Pisidia. But are we to infer on the 
same grounds that he was personally 
known to the Corinthians (i Cor. ix. 6), 
and to the Colossians (Col. iv. lo)? In 
fact the name of Barnabas, as a fa- 
mous Apostle and an older disciple even 
than St Paul himself, would not fail to 
be well known in all the churches. 
On the other hand one or two notices 
in the Galatian Epistle present serious 
obstacles to M. Eenan's view. What 
are we to say for instance to St Paul's 
statement, that he preached the Gos- 
pel in Galatia St' aadiveiav ttjs ffapKos 
(iv. 13), i. e. because he was detained by 
sickness (see Galatians pp. 23 sq., 17-2), 
whereas his journey to Lycaonia and 
Pisidia is distinctly planned with a 
view to missionary work ? Why again 
is there no mention of Timothy, who 
was much in St Paul's company about 

this time, and who on this showing was 
himself a Galatian? Some mention 
would seem to be especially suggested 
where St Paul is justifying his conduct 
respecting the attempt to compel Titus 
to be circumcised, 

1 Col. i. 4. 

' i. 9 dia TovTO Kal "rifieis, &<(>' 17s rifii- 
pas rjKOv(Ta/j,ev, ov iravofieda k.t.X. This 
corresponds to ver. 6 Kadtlis Kal iv v/mv, 
dcp' rjs iifjApas TjKoucraTe Kal iiriyvure 
TT]v x^'P"' ■'■"'^ Qiov iv a\T)delg.. The 
day when they first heard the preach- 
ing of the Gospel, and the day when 
he first heard the tidings of this fact, 
are set against each other. 

3 e.g. i. 5—8, 21—23, 25, 28, 29. 
ii. 5, 6. 

■* ii. I ^Aw yap v/ids eldivaL ijXiKov 
dywva ?x'^ xnrkp v/xQiv Kal tQjv iv AaoSi- 
Kelq. Kal Scoi ovx euipaKav to -rrp'oauirov 
fiov iv (japd, Xva TrapaKXrjducriv al Kap- 



But, if he was not directly their evangelist, yet to him Epapbras 

. was the 

they were indirectly indebted for their knowledge of the truth, evangelist 
Epaphras had been his delegate to them, his representative district. 
in Christ. By Epaphras they had been converted to the Gos- 
pel. This is the evident meaning of a passage in the open- 
ing of the epistle, which has been much obscured by misreading 
and mistranslation, and which may be paraphrased thus : ' The 
Gospel, which has spread and borne fruit throughout the rest 
of the world, has been equally successful among yourselves. 
This fertile growth has been manifested in you from the first 
day when the message of God's grace was preached to you, 
and accepted by you — preached not as now with adulterations 
by these false teachers, but in its genuine simplicity by Epa- 
phras our beloved fellowservant ; he has been a faithful minister 
of Christ and a faithful representative of us, and from him we 
have received tidings of your love in the Spirit\' 

Siai avTWv, (rvfj-pi^aadevre? k.t.X. The 
question of interpretation is whether 
the people of Colossse and Laodicea 
belong to the same category with the 
03-ot, or not. The latter view is taken 
by one or two ancient interpreters 
(e.g. Theodoret in his introduction to 
the epistle), and has been adopted by 
several modern critics. Yet it is op- 
posed alike to grammatical and logical 
considerations, (i) The grammatical 
form is unfavourable ; for the preposi- 
tion vTrkp is not repeated, so that all 
the persons mentioned are included 
under a vinculum. (2) No adequate 
sense can be extracted from the pas- 
sage, so interpreted. For in this case 
what is the drift of the enumeration? 
If intended to be exhaustive, it does 
not fulfil the purpose ; for nothing is 
said of others whom he had seen be- 
sides the Colossians and Laodiceans. 
If not intended to be exhaustive, it is 
meaningless; for there is no reason 
why the Colossians and Laodiceans 

especially should be set off against 
those whom he had not seen, or in- 
deed why in this connexion those whom 
he had not seen should be mentioned 
at all. The whole context shows that 
the Apostle is dweUing on his spiritual 
communion with and interest in those 
with whom he has had no personal com- 
munications. St Jerome {Ep. cxxx. ad 
Demetr. § 2) has rightly caught the 
spirit of the passage; 'Ignoti ad ig- 
notam scribimus, dumtaxat juxta fa- 
ciem corporalem. Alioquin interior 
homo pulcre sibi cognitus est ilia 
notitia qua et Paulus apostolus Co- 
lossenses multosque credentium no- 
verat quos ante non viderat.' For 
parallels to this use of Kal 8(7ot, see 
the note on the passage. 

1 i. 6 iv wavrl ry Koaficp iarlv Kap- 
TTOcpopovfievov Kal av^avofievov, Kadihs Kal 
if v/juv, a,(f>' Tjs 7)fxipai TjKovcraTe Kal 
eTriyvwre rrjv xaptv tov Qeov ev dXrjdeig,, 
Ka6ihs i/xddeTe diro 'ETra^pd rod dyawr}- 
ToO (rvvSovKov i]p.wv, or io'Tiv irtaros 



St Paul's How or when the conversion of the Colossians took place, 


atEphesus we have no direct information. Yet it can hardly be wrong 

mental in ^° connect the event with St Paul's long sojourn at Ephesus. 

their con- Here he remained preaching for three whole years. It is 

possible indeed that during this period he paid short visits to 
A. D. other neighbouring cities of Asia : but if so, the notices in the 
Acts oblige us to suppose these interruptions to his residence 
in Ephesus to have been slight and infrequent^ Yet, though 
the Apostle himself was stationaiy in the capital, the Apostle's 
influence and teaching spread far beyond the limits of the city 
and its immediate neighbourhood. It was hardly an exag- 
geration when Demetrius declared that ' almost throughout 
all Asia this Paul had persuaded and turned away much 
peopled' The sacred historian himself uses equally strong 
language in describing the effects of the Apostle's preaching; 
'All they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, 
both Jews and Greeksl' In accordance with these notices 
the Apostle himself in an epistle written during this sojourn 
sends salutations to Corinth, not from the Church of Ephesus 
specially, as might have been anticipated, but from the 

vxip ijfjiup diCLKovos toO XpiffTov, 6 Kal /ca^ws [/cat] i/xdOere dird '"Eiracppa, traus- 

StjXwcras ttjv vfiQiv dydwrjv iv irvev- lated in our English Version by the 

ixari. ambiguous expression, ' as ye also 

The various readings which obscure learned of Epaphras.' The true force 

the meaning are these, (i) The re- of the words is, ' according as ye were 

ceived text for Kadilis i/nddere has KaOws taught by Epaphras,' being an ex- 

Kal ifxddere. With this reading the plauation of iv dXrieel^. See the notes 

passage suggests that the instructions on the passage. 

of Epaphras were superadded to, and ^ See especially xx. 18 ' Ye know, 

so distinct from, the original evangeli- from the first day when I set foot on 

zation of Colossae ; whereas the correct Asia, how I was with you all the time,' 

text identifies them, (ii) For inrip t}ixu>v and ver. 31 'For three years night and 

the received reading is virkp vij.<2v. day I ceased not warning every one 

Thus the fact that St Paul did not with tears.' As it seems necessary to 

preach at Colossae in person, but allow for a brief visit to Corinth {2 Cor. 

through his representative, is obliterat- xii. 14, xiii. i) during this period, other 

ed. In both cases the authority for intenuptions of long duration should 

the readhags which I have adopted not be postulated, 

against the received test is over- " Acts xix. 26. 


The obscurity of rendering is in 

3 Acts xix. 10. 


'Churches of Asia' generally \ St Luke, it should be ob- 
served, ascribes this dissemination of the Gospel, not to jour- 
neys undertaken by the Apostle, but to his preaching at Ephe- 
sus itself^. Thither, as to the metropolis of Western Asia, 
would flock crowds from all the towns and villages far and near. 
Thence they would carry away, each to his own neighbour- 
hood, the spiritual treasure which they had so unexpectedly 

Among the places thus represented at the Asiatic metro- Eelationa 
polls would doubtless be the cities lying in the valley of the citLs^with 
Lycus. The relations between these places and Ephesus ap- Ephesus. 
pear to have been unusually intimate. The Concord of the 
Laodiceans and Ephesians, the Concord of the Hierapolitans 
and Ephesians, are repeatedly commemorated on medals struck 

for the purpose I Thus the Colossians, Epaphras and Phile- The work 

1 d 1 1 1 1 "^^ Phile- 

mon, the latter with his household , and perhaps also the mon and 

Laodicean Nymphas^ would fall in with the Apostle of the ^^"^ ^^' 

Gentiles and hear from his lips the first tidings of a heavenly 


But, whatever service may have been rendered by Philemon but especi- 
at Colossse, or by Nymphas at Laodicea, it was to Epaphras phras. 
especially that all the three cities were indebted for their 
knowledge of the Gospel. Though he was a Colossian by birth, 
the fervency of his prayers and the energy of his love are re- 
presented as extending equally to Laodicea and Hierapolis^ 
It is obvious that he looked upon himself as responsible for 
the spiritual well-being of all alike. 

^ I Cor. xvi. 19 dcrird^ovTai v/xds al p. 324, 325, 331, 332, Snppl. vii. p. 

iKK\rj<Tlai TTjs 'Affias. In accordance 583, 586, 589; lepAUOAeiTOON . €(})€- 

with these facts it should be noticed that CIOON . OMONOIA, Eckhel in. p. 155, 

St Paul himself aUuding to this period 157, Mionnet iv. p. 299, 300, 307, 

speaks of 'Asia,' as the scene of his Suppl. vii. p. 569, 571, 572, 574, 575. 

ministry (2 Cor. i. 8, Kom. xvi 5). See Steiger Eolosser p. 50, and comp. 

^ Acts xix. 10 ' disputing daily in Krause Civitat. Neocor. § 20. 

the School of Tyrannus ; and this con- * PhUem. i, 2, 19. 

tinned for two years, so that all they ^ CqI. iv. 15. On the question 

which dwelt in Asia, etc. ' whether the name is Nymphas or 

^ AaoAikgcon . ecjjeciOON . OMO- Nympha, see the notes there. 

NOIA, Eckhel in. p. 165, Mionnet iv. " iv. 12, 13. 


St Paul We pass over a period of five or six years. St Paul's 

stranfjerto ^^st captivity in Rome is now drawing to a close. During 
trkt*^^^' *^^^ interval he has not once visited the valley of the Lycus. 
He has, it is true, skirted the coast and called at Miletus, 
which lies near the mouth of the Mseander; but, though the 
elders of Ephesus were summoned to meet him there \ no 
mention is made of any representatives from these more dis- 
tant towns. 
His I have elsewhere described the Apostle's circumstances 

men^aT during his residence in Rome, so far as they are known to 
Eome. ys2 j^ jg sufficient to say here, that though he is still a 
prisoner, friends new and old minister freely to his wants. 
Meanwhile the alienation of the Judaic Christians is complete. 
Three only, remaining faithful to him, are commemorated as 
honourable exceptions in the general desertion'. 
ColossfB We have seen that Colossae was an unimportant place, and 

before his ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^ direct personal claims on the Apostle. We 
notice by might therefore feel surprise that, thus doubly disqualified, 
dents. it should nevertheless attract his special attention at a critical 
moment, when severe personal trials were superadded to ' the 
care of all the churches.' But two circumstances, the one 
affecting his public duties, the other private and personal, 
happening at this time, conspired to bring Colossae prominently 
before his notice. 
1. The I. He had received a visit from Epaphras. The dangerous 

Epaphbas. condition of the Colossian and neighbouring churches had 
filled the mind of their evangelist with alarm. A strange 
form of heresy had broken out in these brotherhoods — a com- 
bination of Judaic formalism with Oriental mystic specula- 
tion — and was already spreading rapidly. His distress was 
extreme. He gratefully acknowledged and reported their faith 
in Christ and their works of love^ But this only quickened 
his anxiety. He had ' much toil for them ' ; he was ' ever 

^ Acts XX. i6, 17. ^ Col. iv. 10, II. See Philippians 

- See Philippians p. 6 sq. p. 1 7 sq. * i. 4, 8. 


wrestling in his prayers on their behalf,' that they might 

stand fast and not abandon the simplicity of their earlier faith \ 

He came to Rome, we may suppose, for the express purpose 

of laying this state of things before the Apostle and seeking his 

counsel and assistance. 

2. But at the time when Epaphras paid this visit, St Paul 2. onesi- 

was also in communication with another Colossian, who had "".Y.^ ^ Z*^" 

gitive in 

visited Rome under very different circumstances. Onesimus, Eome. 
the runaway slave, had sought the metropolis, the common 
sink of all nations °, probably as a convenient hiding place, 
where he might escape detection among its crowds and make 
a livelihood as best he could. Here, perhaps accidentally, 
perhaps through the intervention of Epaphras, he fell in with 
his master's old friend. The Apostle interested himself in his 
case, instructed him in the Gospel, and transformed him from a 
good-for-nothing slave ' into a ' faithful and beloved brother *.' 

This combination of circumstances called the Apostle's at- ™ ^ ^ 

tention to the Churches of the Lycus, and more especially to stle de- 

. spatches 

Colossse. His letters, which had been found ' weighty and three let- 
powerful ' in other cases, might not be unavailing now ; and taneously." 
in this hope he took up his pen. Three epistles were written 
and despatched at the same time to this district. 

I. He addresses a special letter to the CoLOSSlANS, written i. The 
in the joint names of himself and Timothy, warning them ^o the 
against the errors of the false teachers. He gratefully ac- ^^los- 

=> _ . . SIAN3. 

knowledges the report which he has received of their love 
and zeal^ He assures them of the conflict which agitates 
him on their behalf ^ He warns tliera to be on their guard 
aq-ainst i:he delusive loqic of enticing^ words, against the vain 
deceit of a false philosophy ^ The purity of their Christianity The thco- 
is endangered by two errors, recommended to them by their the practi- 
heretical leaders — the one theological, the other practical — the^Colos^- 


^ iv. 12, 13. * Col. iv, 9; comp. Philem. 16. 

^ Tac. Ann. xv. 44. s j ^ — g^ 21 sq. 

3 Philem. 1 1 t6i> irori aoi dxpwTov " ii. i sq. 

K.r.X. ^ ii. 4, 8, 18. 

COL. 3 


but both alike springing from the same source, the conception 
of matter as the origin and abode of evil. Thus, regarding 
God and matter as directly antagonistic and therefore apart 
from and having no communication with each other, they sought 
to explain the creation and government of the world by inter- 
posing a series of intermediate beings, emanations or angels, 
to whom accordingly they offered worship. At the same time, 
since they held that evil resided, not in the rebellious spirit of 
man, but in the innate properties of matter, they sought to 
overcome it by a rigid ascetic discipline, which failed after ail 
The pro- ^^ touch the springs of action. As both errors flowed from the 
per correc- g^me source, they must be corrected by the application of the 
both lies same remedy, the Christ of the GospeL In the Person of Christ, 
Christ of the one mediator between heaven and earth, is the true solution 
pgl_ " of the theological difficulty. Through the Life in Christ, the 
purification of the heart through faith and love, is the effectual 
triumph over moral evil\ St Paul therefore prescribes to 
the Colossians the true teaching of the Gospel, as the best anti- 
dote to the twofold danger which threatens at once their theo- 
Eeferences logical creed and their moral principles; while at the same 
phras.*' time he enforces his lesson by the claims of personal affection, 
appealing to the devotion of their evangelist Epaphras on 
their behalf ^ 

Of Epaphras himself we know nothing beyond the few but 
significant notices which connect him with Coloss^B^ He did 
not return to ColossEe as the bearer of the letter, but remained 

^ i. I — 20, ii. 9, iii. 4. The two note 4. The later tradition, vrhich 
threads are closely interwoven in St makes him bishop of Colossfe, is doiibt- 
Paiil's refutation, as these references less an inference from St Paul's Ian- 
will show. The connexion of the two guage and has no independent value, 
errors, as arising from the same false The further statement of the martyr- 
principle, wiU be considered more in ologies, that he suffered martyrdom 
detail in the next chapter. for his flock, can hardly be held to 
'^ i. 7, iv. 12. deserve any higher credit. His day is 
3 For the reasons why Epaphras the 19th of July in the Western 
cannot be identified with Epaphrodi- Calendar. His body is said to lie in 
tus, who is mentioned in the Phi- the Church of S. Maria Maggiore at 
lippian letter, see Philippians p. 6r, Rome. 


behind with St Paul\ As St Paul in a contemporary epistle 
designates him his fellow-prisoner ^ it may be inferred that 
his zeal and affection had involved him in the Apostle's cap- 
tivity, and that his continuance in Rome was enforced. But 
however this may be, the letter was placed in the hands of 
Tychicus, a native of proconsular Asia, probably of Ephesus ^, Tychieua 
who was entrusted with a wider mission at this time, and in its mus ac- ^ ' 
discharge would be obliged to visit the valley of the Lycus *. f^"^? t?^ 
At the same time he was accompanied by Onesimus, whom the 
Colossians had only known hitherto as a worthless slave, but 
who now returns to them with the stamp of the Apostle's warm 
approval. St Paul says very little about himself, because 
Tychicus and Onesimus would be able by word of mouth to 
communicate all information to the Colossians ^ But he sends The salu- 
one or two salutations which deserve a few words of explana- ^"°^®* 
tion. Epaphras of course greets his fellow-townsmen and 
children in the faith. Other names are those of Aristarchus 
the Thessalonian, who had been with the Apostle at Ephesus ° 
and may possibly have formed some personal connexion with 
the Colossians at that time : Mark, against whom apparently 
the Apostle fears that a prejudice may be entertained (perhaps 
the fact of his earlier desertion, and of St Paul's dissatisfaction 
in consequence ^, may have been widely known), and for whom 
therefore he asks a favourable reception at his approaching 
visit to Colossse, according to instructions which they had already 
received ; and Jesus the Just, of whose relations with the 

1 Col. iv. 12. prisoner at this time, and have been 

* Philem. 23 6 ffwaixfJ-d\o}T6s fxov. removed with his parents to Colossc'B. 

The word may possibly have a meta- It is not quite clear whether this 

phorical sense (see PMUppians p. 11); statement respecting Epaphras is part 

but the literal meaning is more proba- of the tradition, or Jerome's own con- 

ble. St Jerome on Philem. 23 (vii. p. jecture appended to it. 

762) gives the story that St Paul's ^ Acts xx. 4, 2 Tim. iv. 12. 

parents were natives of Giscala and, * See below, p. 37. 

when the Eomans invaded and wasted 6 Col. iv. 7 — 9. 

Judiea, were banished thence with their ^ Acts xix. 29. 

son to Tarsus. He adds that Epaphras ^ Acts xiii. 13, xv. 37 — 39. 

may have been St Paul's fellow- 



Colossians we know nothing, and whose only claim to a men- 
tion may have been his singular fidelity to the Apostle at a 
critical juncture. Salutations moreover are added from Luke 
and from Demas ; and here again their close companionship 
with the Apostle is, so far as we know, the sole cause of their 
names appearing \ 
Charge re- Lastly, the Laodiceans were closely connected with the 
L^dicea Colossians by local and spiritual ties. To the Church of Lao- 
dicea therefore, and to the household of one Nymphas who 
was a prominent member of it, he sends greeting. At the 
same time he directs them to interchange letters with the 
Laodiceans ; for to Laodicea also he had written. And he 
closes his salutations with a message to Archippus, a resident 
either at Colossse or at Laodicea (for on this point we are left 
to conjecture), who held some important office in the Church, 
and respecting whose zeal he seems to have entertained a 
misgiving ^ 
2 The ^- ^^^^> ""^^^i^s providing for the spiritual welfare of the 

Letter to whole Colossian Church, he did not forget the temporal inter- 


ests of its humblest member. Having attended to the soli- 
citations of the evangelist Epaphras, he now addressed himself to 
the troubles of the runaway slave Onesimus. The mission of 
Tychicus to Colossoe was a favourable opportunity of restoring 
him to Philemon ; for Tychicus, well kno^^^^ as the Apostle's 
friend and fellow-labourer, might throw the shield of his pro- 
tection over him and avert the worst consequences of Phile- 
mon's anger. But, not content with this measure of precaution, 
the Apostle himself writes to Philemon on the offender's be- 
half, recommending him as a changed man ', and claiming for- 
giveness for him as a return due from Philemon to himself as to 
his spiritual father*. 

The salutations in this letter are the same as those in 
the Epistle to the Colossians with the exception of Jesus 

^ Col. iv. 10 — 14. * Pbilem. 11, 16. 

* iv. 15—17. ■* ver. 19. 


Justus, whose name is omitted \ Towards the close St Paul 
declares his hope of release and intention of visiting Colossae, 
and asks Philemon to ' prepare a lodging ' for him ^ 

3. But at the same time with the two letters destined espe- 3. The 
cially for Colossi, the Apostle despatched a third, which had lStee^^! 
a wider scope. It has been already mentioned that Tychicus "^^^^ a 
was charged with a mission to the Asiatic Churches. It has sent to 
been noticed also that the Colossians were directed to procure 
and read a letter in the possession of the Laodiceans. These 
two facts are closely connected. The Apostle wrote at this 
time a circular letter to the Asiatic Churches, which got 
its ultimate designation from the metropolitan city and is 
consequently known to us as the Epistle to the EPHESIANS^ 
It was the immediate object of Tychicus' journey to deliver 
copies of this letter at all the principal centres of Christi- 
anity in the district, and at the same time to communicate 
by word of mouth the Apostle's special messages to each*. 
Among these centres was Laodicea. Thus his mission brought 
him into the immediate neighbourhood of Colossae. But he 
was not charged to deliver another copy of the circular letter 
at Colossae itself, for this Church would be regarded only as 
a dependency of Laodicea; and besides he was the bearer of 
a special letter from the Apostle to them. It was sufficient 
therefore to provide that the Laodicean copy should be circu- 
lated and read at Colossae. 

Thus the three letters are closely related. Tychicus is the Personal 

personal link of connexion between the Epistles to the Ephe- nectin^ 

sians and to the Colossians : Onesimus between those to the ^^^^ *^^® 

' letters. 

Colossians and to Philemon. 

For reasons given elsewhere ^ it would appear that these 
three letters were written and despatched towards the close of 
the Apostle's captivity, about the year 63. At some time not 

^ w. 23, 24. B See Philippians p. 30 sq. ; where 

* ver. 22. reasons are given for placing the 
^ See the introduction to the epis- Philippian Epistle at an earUer, and 

tie. the others at a later stage in the 

* Ephes. vi. 21, 22. Apostle's captivity. 



quake in 
tlie Lycua 

very distant from this date, a great catastrophe overtook the 
cities of the Lycus valley. An earthquake was no uncommon 
occurrence in this region \ But on this occasion the shock had 
been unusually violent, and Laodicea, the flourishing and popu- 
lous, was laid in ruins. Tacitus, who is our earliest authority 
for this fact, places it in the year 60 and is silent about the 
neighbouring towns ^ Eusebius however makes it subse- 

^ See above, p. 3. Laodicea was 
visited by the foUowing earthquakes 
in the ages preceding and subsequent 
to the Christian era. 

(i) Before about B.C. 125, Orac. 
Sibyll. iii. 471, if the date now com- 
monly assigned to this Sibylline Oracle 
be correct, and if the passage is to be 
regarded as a prophecy after the event. 
In iii. 347 Hierapolis is also mentioned 
as suffering in the same way; but it 
may be questioned whether the Phry- 
gian city is meant. 

(2) About B.C. 12, Strabo xii. 8, p. 579, 
Dion Cass. Uv. 30. Strabo names only 
Laodicea and Tralles, but Dion Cas- 
sius says ij 'Aaia rb iOvos iwiKovplai 
Tivbs 5ta creifffMoiis ixaXiara ideiro. 

(3) A.D. 60 according to Tacitus 
(Ann. xiv. 27); a.d. 64 or 65 according 
to Eusebius [Chron. s.a.), who includes 
also Hierapolis and Colossas. To this 
earthquake allusion is made in a Sibyl- 
Une Oracle written not many years 
after the event; Orac. Sibyll. iv. 107 
(see also v. 289, vii. 23). 

(4) Between a.d. 222 and a.d. 235, 
in the reign of Alexander Severus, as 
we learn from another Sibylline Oracle 
(xii. 280). On this occasion Hierapolis 
also suffered. 

This list wiU probably be found not 
to have exhausted aU these catastro- 
phes on record. 

The following earthquakes also are 
mentioned as happening in the neigh- 
bouring towns or in the district gene- 
rally: at an uncertain date, Carura 
(Strabo xii. 8, p. 578); a.d. 17 the 

twelve cities, Sardis being the worst 
sufferer (Tac. Ann. ii. 7, Plin. N. H. 
ii. 86, Dion Cass. Ivii. 17, Strabo xii. 
8) P- 579); A.D. 23 Cihyra (Tac. Ajiu. 
iv. 13); A.D. 53 Apamea (Tac. Ann. 
xii. 58): about a.d. 138 — 142, under 
Antoninus Pius, 'Ehodiorum et Asia 
oppida' (Capitol. Anton. Pius 9, Aristid. 
Or. xhv); a.d. 151 or 152, under the 
same emperor, Mitylene and other 
places (Aristid. Or. xxv); a.d. 180, 
under M. Aurehus, Smi/rna {Chron. 
Pasch. I. p. 489, ed. Dind., Aristid. Or. 
XX, xxi, xii ; see CUnton Fast. Rom. i. 
p. 176 sq., Hertzberg Griechenland etc. 
II. pp. 371, 410, and esp. Waddington 
Memoire sur la Chronologie du Eheteur 
^lius Aristide pp. 242 sq., 267, in 
Mem. de I'Acad. des Inscr. xxvi, 1867, 
who has corrected the dates) ; a.d. 262, 
under GaJlienus 11 (TrebeU. Gallien. 5 
•Malum tristius in Asia urbibus fuit 
...hiatus terras plurimis in locis fue- 
ruut, cum aqua salsa in fossis appa- 
reret,' ib. 6 'vastatam .4sja77i...elemen- 
torum concussionibus'). Strabo says 
(P- 579) that Philadelphia is more or 
less shaken daily (Kad' rjfj.4pav), and 
that Apamea has suffered from nu- 
merous earthquakes. 

- Tac. Ann. xiv. 27 'Eodem anno 
ex inlustribus Asiae urbibus Laodicea, 
tremore terra prolapsa, nullo a nobis 
remedio propriis opibus revaluit.' The 
year is given 'Nerone iv, Com. Cosso 
consulibus' (xiv. 20). Two different 
wi'iters, in Smith's Dictionary of Geo- 
graphy and Smith's Dictionary of the 
Bible, s.v. Laodicea, place the destruc- 



quent to the burning of Rome (a.d, 64), and mentions Hiera- Its proba- 
polis and Colossse also as involved in the disaster ^ ; while later ^ ^ ®' 
writers, adopting the date of Eusebius and including the three 
cities with him, represent it as one of a series of divine judg- 
ments on the heathen world for the persecution of the Chris- 
tians which followed on the fire^ Having no direct knowledge 
of the source from which Eusebius derived his information, we 
should naturally be disposed to accept the authority of Tacitus 
for the date, as more trustworthy. But, as indications occur 
elsewhere that Eusebius followed unusually good authorities in 
recording these earthquakes ^ it is far from improbable that he 

tion of Laodicea in the reign of Tibe- 
rius, confusing this earthquake with 
an earUer one (Ann. ii. 47). By this 
earlier earthquake 'duodecim celebres 
Asiffi urbes conlapsse,' but their names 
are given, and not one is situated in 
the valley of the Lycus. 

1 Euseb. Chron. 01. 210 (11. p. 154 
sq., ed. Schone) 'In Asia tres urbes 
terrae motu concideruut Laodicea Hie- 
rapohs ColossaB.' The Armenian ver- 
sion and Jerome agree in placing it 
the next event in order after the fire 
at Eome (a.d. 64), though there is a 
difference of a year in the two texts. 
If the Sibylline Oracle, v. 317, refers to 
this earthquake, as seems probable, 
we have independent testimony that 
Hierapolis was involved in the cata- 
strophe; comp. ih. V. ■289. 

2 This is evidently the idea of Oro- 
sius, vii. 7. 

^ I draw this inference from his 
account of the earthquake in the reign 
of Tiberius. Tacitus [Ann. ii. 47) states 
that twelve cities were ruined in one 
night, and records their names. Pliny 
also, who mentions this earthquake as 
' the greatest within the memory of 
man'(iV. H. ii. 86), gives the same 
number. Eusebius however, Chron. 
Oh 198 (II. p. 146 sq., ed. Schone), 
names thirteen cities, coinciding with 

Tacitus as far as he goes, but including 
Ephesus also. Now a monument was 
found at Puteoh (see Gronov. Thes. 
GrcBc. Ant. vii, p. 433 sq.), and is now 
in the Museum at Naples (Museo 
Borbonico xv, Tav. iv, v), dedicated 
to Tiberius and representing fourteen 
female figures with the names of four- 
teen Asiatic cities underneath ; these 
names being the same as those men- 
tioned by Tacitus with the addition of 
Ephesus and Cibyra. There can be 
no doubt that this was one of those 
monuments mentioned by Apollouius 
quoted in Phlegon {Fragm. 42, Miiller's 
Fragm. Hist. GrcBC. iii. p. 621) as 
erected to commemorate the hberaUty 
of Tiberius in contributing to the re- 
storation of the ruined cities (see Eckhel 
Doct. Num. Vet. vi. 192 sq.). But no 
earthquake at Ephesus is mentioned 
by Tacitus. He does indeed speak of 
such a catastrophe as happening at 
Cibyra (Ann. iv. 13) six years later 
than the one which ruined the twelve 
cities, and of the relief which Tiberius 
afforded on this latter occasion as on 
the former. But we owe to Eusebius 
alone the fact that Ephesus also was 
seriously injured by an earthquake in 
the same year — perhaps not on the 
same night — with the twelve cities: 
and this fact is necessary to explain 


Bearing on gives the coiTCCt date \ In this case the catastrophe was siib- 
ology of sequent to the writing of these letters. If on the other hand 
these let- ^}jq yg^j. j^amed by Tacitus be adopted, we gain a subsidiary- 
confirmation of the comparatively late date which I have ven- 
tured to assign to these epistles on independent grounds ; for, 
if they had been written two years earlier, when the blow was 
recent, we might reasonably have expected to find some refer- 
ence to a disaster which had devastated Laodicea and from 
which Colossse cannot have escaped altogether without injury. 
The additional fact mentioned by the Roman historian, that 
Laodicea was rebuilt from her own resources without the usual 
assistance from Rome *, is valuable as illustrating a later notice 
in the ApostoHc writings ^ 
St Mark's It has been seen that, when these letters were written, 
visit. ^^ Mark was intending shortly to visit Colossse, and that the 

Apostle himself, looking forward to his release, hoped at length 
to make a personal acquaintance with these churches, which 
hitherto he knew only through the report of others. Whether 
St Mark's visit was ever paid or not, we have no means of 
determining*. Of St Paul himself it is reasonable to assume, 

the monument. It should be added 5^ TrdXii' wdXiv evpvayviav, where ar-^aei 

that Nipperdey (on Tac. Ann. ii. 47) must be the 2nd person, 'Thou wilt re- 

Bupposes the earthquake at Ephesus bxiild thy city with its broad streets.' 

to have been recorded in the lost por- This SibyUine poem was written about 

tion of the fifth book of the Annals theyeai"8o. ThebuUdingof theamphi- 

which comprised the years a, d. 29 — 3 1 ; theatre, mentioned above (p. 6, note 6), 

but this bare hyjjothesis cannot out- would form part of tliis work of recou- 

weigh the direct testimony of Euse- struction. 
bius. ^ See below, p. 43. 

^ Hertzberg {Gesehichte Griechen- * Two notices however imply that 

lands unter dur Herrschaft der Rdiner St Mai'k had some personal connexion 

II. p. 96) supposes that Tacitus and Eu- with Asia Minor in the years imme- 

Bebius refer to two different events, diately succeeding the date of this re- 

and that Laodicea was visited by earth- fereuce: (i) St Peter, waiting to the 

quakes twice within a few years, a. d. Churches of Asia Minor, sends a salu- 

60 and A.D. 65. tation from St Mark (i Pet. v. 13); 

2 Tac. Ann. xiv. 2 7, quoted above, (2) St Paul gives charge to Timothy, 

p. 38, note 2. To this fact allusion is who appears to be still residing at 

made in the feigned prediction of the Ephesus, to take up Mark and bring 

SibyUines, iv. 107 TXrj/j.ov AaodiKeia, ai him to Piome (2 Tim. iv. 11 ^IdpKov 

di Tpuiau irori aeiaubs np-qvi^as, aTi'icrei dvaXa^wi/ dye fiera aeavroO). Thus it 


that in the interval between his first and second Roman cap- St Paul 
tivity he found some opportunity of carrying out his design, yisits ^ 
At all events we find him at Miletus, near to the mouth of ^°^^^^®* 
the Mgeander^ : and the journey between this place and Lao- 
dicea is neither long nor difficult. 

At the time of this visit — the first and last, we may 
suppose, which he paid to the valley of the Lycus — St Paul's 
direction of the Asiatic Churches is drawing to a close. With St Jolm 
his death they pass into the hands of St John^, who takes up Minor, 
his abode in Asia Minor. Of Colossse and Hierapolis we hear 
nothing more in the New Testament : but from his exile in 
Patmos the beloved disciple delivers his Lord's message to the The mes- 
Church of Laodicea^; a message doubtless intended to be Laodicoa. 
communicated also to the two subordinate Churches, to which 
it would apply almost equally well. 

The message communicated by St John to Laodicea pro- Corres- 
longs the note which was struck by St Paul in the letter to between 
Colossse. An interval of a very few years has not materially Jvpse aud" 

altered the character of these churches. Obviously the same S* Paul's 
., , -PI . Epistles. 

temper prevails, the same errors are rife, the same correction 

must be applied. 

I. Thus, while St Paul finds it necessary to enforce the i. The 

truth that Christ is the image of the invisible God, that in the Person 

Him all the divine fulness dwells, that He existed before all °^ Clmst, 

things, that through Him all things were created and in Him 

all things are sustained, that He is the primary source {dp)(^t]) 

Beems fairly probable that St Mark's he also visited personally the districts 

projected visit to Colossse was paid. evangelized directly or indirectly by 

1 2 Tim. iv. 20. By a strange error St Paul, we have no means of deciding. 
Lequien {Ori&ns Christ. 1. p. 833) Such a visit is far from unlikely, but 
substitutes Hierapolis for Nicopolis in it can hardly have been of long dura- 
Tit, iii. 12, and argues from the pas- tion. A copy of his letters would pro- 
sage that the Church of Hierapolis bably be sent to Laodicea, as a prin- 
was founded by St Paul. cipal centre of Christianity in Pro- 

^ It was apparently during the in- consular Asia, which is among the 

terval between St Paul's first captivity provinces mentioned in the address of 

at Eome and his death, that St Peter the First Epistle, 

wrote to the Churches of Asia Minor ' Rev. iii. 14 — 21. 
(i Pet. i. i). Whether in this interval 


and has the pre-eminence in all things^; so in almost identical 

language St John, speaking in the person of our Lord, declares 

that He is the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the primary 

source (ap-^^rj) of the creation of God*. Some lingering shreds 

of the old heresy, we may suppose, still hung about these 

Churches, and instead of 'holding fast the Head' they were 

even yet prone to substitute intermediate agencies, angelic 

mediators, as links in the chain which should bind man to 

God. They still failed to realise the majesty and significance, 

the completeness, of the Person of Christ. 

and prac- And the practical duty also, which follows from the recog- 

which fol- iiition of the theological truth, is enforced by both Apostles 

low upon jj^ ygj.y similar language. If St Paul entreats the Colossians 

to seek those things which are above, where Christ is seated on 

the right hand of God', and in the companion epistle, which 

also he directs them to read, reminds the Churches that 

God raised them with Christ and seated them with him in 

heavenly places in Christ Jesus* ; in like manner St John 

gives this promise to the Laodiceans in the name of his Lord : 

' He that overcometh, I will grant to him to sit with me in my 

throne, even as I also overcame and did sit with my Father in 

His throne ^' 

2. Warn- 2. But again; after a parting salutation to the Churcli of 

lukewaim- Laodicea St Paul closes with a warning to Archippus, ap- 

"ess. parently its chief pastor, to take heed to his ministry^ Some 

' Col. i. 15 — 18. ner' i/ioO, k.t.\. Here again it must 
" Eev. iii. 14. It should be ob- be noticed that there is no such re- 
served that this designation of our semblance in the language of the 
Lord {i} apxh t^s KTlcrecjs toD Oeov), promises to the faithful in the other 
which so closely resembles the Ian- sis Churches. This double coinci- 
guage of the Colossian Epistle, does dence, affecting the two ideas which 
not occur in the messages to the other may be said to cover the whole ground 
six Churches, nor do we there find in the Epistle to the Colossians, can 
anything resembling it. hardly, I think, be fortuitous, and 
^ Col. iii. I. suggests an acquaintance with and 
* Ephes. ii. 6 awriyeipev Kal awe- recognition of the earlier Apostle's 
Kadicrev k.t.X. teaching on the pai't of St John, 
s Eev. iii. 2 1 Stio-w aiirt^ Kudlffai ^ Col. iv. 1 7. 


sisms of slackened zeal seem to have called forth this rebuke. 
It may be an accidental coincidence, but it is at least worthy 
of notice, that lukewarmness is the special sin denounced in 
the angel of the Laodiceans, and that the necessity of greater 
earnestness is the burden of the message to that ChurchS As 
with the people, so it is with the priest. The community takes 
its colour from and communicates its colour to its spiritual 
rulers. The ' be zealous' of St John is the counterpart to the 
'take heed' of St Paul. 

3. Lastly ; in the Apocalyptic message the pride of wealth 3. The 
is sternly condemned in the Laodicean Church : ' For that thou ^"gllh de 
sayest I am rich and have gotten me riches and have need nounced. 
of nothing, and knowest not that thou art utterly wretched 
and miserable and beggarly and blind and naked, I counsel 
thee to buy gold of me refined with fire, that thou mayest 
have riches*.' This proud vaunt receives its best illustration 
from a recent occurrence at Laodicea, to which allusion has 
already been made. Only a very few years before this date an 
earthquake had laid the city in ruins. Yet from this catastrophe 
she rose again with more than her former splendour. This The vaunt 
however was not her chief title to respect. While other cities, cea.^*^ 
prostrated by a like visitation, had sought relief from the con- 
cessions of the Roman senate or the liberality of the emperor's 
purse, it was the glory of Laodicea that she alone neither 
courted nor obtained assistance, but recovered by her own 
resources. * Nullo a nobis remedio,' says the Roman his- 
torian, 'propriis opibus revaluit^' Thus she had asserted a 
proud independence, to which neither far-famed metropolitan 
Ephesus, nor old imperial Sardis, nor her prosperous commer- 

1 Eev. iii. 19. If the common view, interpretation of the angels seems to 

that by the angel of the Church its me incorrect. 

chief pastor is meant, were correct, and ^ Eev. iii. 17, 18, where the correct 
if Archippus (as is very probable) had reading with the repetition of the 
beenlivingwhen St John wrote, the coin- definite articles, d TaXatVwpos /cat d 
eidence would be still more striking ; see i\eiv6s, signifies the type, the em- 
Trench's Epistles to the Seven Churches bodiment of wretchedness, etc. 
in Asia p. 180. But for reasons given ^ Tac. Ann. xiv. 27. 
elsewhere (Philippians p. 199 sq.), this 


cial neighbours, Apamea aud Cibyra, could lay claim \ No 
one would dispute her boast that she 'had gotten riches and 
had need of nothing.' 
Pride of -^^^ ^^ there not a second and subsidiary idea underlying 

intellectu- i\^q Apocalyptic rebuke ? The pride of intellectual wealth, 
we may well suspect, was a temptation at Laodicea hardly less 
strong than the pride of material resources. When St Paul 
wrote, the theology of the Gospel and the comprehension of 
the Church were alike endangered by a spirit of intellectual 
exclusiveness'' in these cities. He warned them against a vain 
philosophy, against a show of wisdom, against an intrusive 
mystic speculation, which vainly puffed up the fleshly mind^ 
He tacitly contrasted with this false intellectual wealth ' the 
riches of the glory of God's mystery revealed in Christ*,' the 
riches of the full assurance of understanding, the genuine trea- 
sures of wisdom and knowledge®. May not the same contrast 
be discerned in the language of St John ? The Laodiceans 
boast of their enlightenment, but they are blind, and to cure 
their blindness they must seek eye-salve from the hands of the 
great Physician. They vaunt their wealth of knowledge, but 
they are wretched paupers, and must beg the refined gold of 
the Gospel to relieve their wants^ 

This is the last notice in the Apostolic records relating to 
the Churches in the valley of the Lycus ; but during the suc- 
ceeding ages the Christian communities of this district play 
a conspicuous part in the struggles and the development of the 
Church. When after the destruction of Jerusalem St John 

1 lu all the other cases of earth- * See the next chapter of this intro- 

quake which Tacitus records as hap- duction. 
pening in these Asiatic cities, Ann. ^ Col. ii. 8, i8, 23. 

ii. 47 (the twelve cities), iv. 13 (Ci- * i. 37. 

byra), xii. 58 (Apamea), he meutions ^ ii. 2, 3. 

the fact of their obtaining relief from ^ Comp, Eph. i. 18 ' The eyes of 

the Senate or the Emperor. On an your understanding being enlightened, 

earlier occasion Laodicea herself had that ye may know what is the hope 

not disdained mider similar circum- of his calling, what the riches of the 

stances to receive assistance from Au- glory of his inlierltance in the saints.' 
gustus : Strabo, xii. p. 579. 



fixed his abode at Ephesus, it would appear that not a few of 
the oldest surviving members of the Palestinian Church ac- 
companied him into 'Asia,' which henceforward became the 
head-quarters of Apostolic authority. In this body of emi- 
grants Andrew^ and Philip among the twelve, Aristion and 
John the presbyter^ among other personal disciples of the 
Lord, are especially mentioned. 

Among the chief settlements of this Christian dispersion was 
Hierapolis. This fact explains how these Phrygian Churches 
assumed a prominence in the ecclesiastical history of the second 
century, for which we are hardly prepared by their antecedents 
as they appear in connexion with St Paul, and which they 
failed to maintain in the history of the later Church. 

Here at all events was settled Philip of Bethsaida^ the 

The early 

settle in 
lar Asia 

and espe- 
cially at 

* Canon Murator. fol. i, 1. 14 (p. 17, 
ed. Tregelles), Cureton's Ancient Sy- 
riac Documents pp. 32, 34. Comp. 
Papias in Euseb. H. E. iii. 39. 

2 Papias in Euseb. H. E. iii. 39. 

^ Polycrates in Euseb. H. E. iii. 31, 
V. •24 <l>iXt7r7ro;' [top] tCov dtbdfKa dtro- 
ot6\o}V, OS KeKolfirjTai iv 'lepaTroKei, 
kolI Svo dvyaripes avrov yeyT]paKViai 
irapdivoi, Kal t) eripa avrov dvydrrip iv 
ayl(j} TTvei^yuort iroXiTevaafiivt), rj iv 
'Ijcpiffif} dvavaijeTaL. To this third 
daughter the statement of Clement of 
Alexandria must refer, though by a 
common looseness of expression he 
uses the plural number (Euseb. H. E. 
iii. 30) rj Kal roiis diroffroXovs clttoSo- 
Ki/J.d<rov<n' Uirpos fJ-kv yap Kal ^iXnnros 
iTraLdoxoiTjaavTo, ^LXiTnros S^ Kal rax 
Ovyaripas dvdpdaiv i^^duiKe. On the 
other hand in the Dialogue between 
Gains and Procliis, Philip the Evan- 
gehst was represented as residing at 
HierapoUs (Euseb. H. E. iii. 31) /^erd 
TOVTOv Si TTpotpriTiSes Tiaaapes al ^l- 
Xlttitov yeyh7]VTaL iv'lepaTroXet ry Kara 
TTjv 'AaLav 6 rdcpos avrCbv iarlv iKei, Kal 
6 Tov iraTpbs avTwv, where the mention 
of the /owr daughters 2»»'0i>'jes?/m^ iden- 

tifies the person meant (see Acts xxi. 
8). Nothing can be clearer than that 
St Luke distinguishes Philip the Evan- 
gehst from PhHip the Apostle ; for 
(i) 'WTien the Seven are appointed, he 
distinctly states that this new office 
is created to reheve the Twelve of some 
onerous duties (Acts vi. 2 — 5). (2) Af- 
ter Philip the Evangehst has preached 
in Samaria, two of the Twelve are sent 
thither to convey the gifts of the Spirit, 
which required the presence of an 
Apostle (viii. 14 — 17). (3) When St 
Paul and his companions visit Phihp 
at Caesarea, he is carefully described 
as 'the Evangehst, being one of the 
Seven' (xxi. 8). As St Luke was a 
member of the Apostle's company 
when this visit was paid, and stayed 
'many days' in PhiUp's house, the 
accuracy of his information cannot be 
questioned. Yet Eusebius (H. E. iii. 
31) assumes the identity of the Apostle 
with the Evangehst, and describes the 
notice in the Dialogue of Gains and 
Proclus as being 'in harmony with 
{(rvvq-duv)' the language of Polycrates. 
And accordingly in another passage 
(H. E. iii. 39), when he has occasion 



Philip the early friend and fellow-townsman of St John, and the first 
with his Apostle who is recorded to have held communication with 
daughters, ^j^^ Gentiles\ Here he died and was buried; and here after 

to mention the conversations of Papias 
with Philip's daughters at Hierapolis, 
he again supposes them to be the same 
who are mentioned in the Acts. 

My reasons for beUeving that the 
Philip who lived at Hierapolis was not 
the Evangelist, but the Apostle, are as 
follows, (i) This is distinctly stated 
by the earliest witness, Polycrates, 
who was bishop of Ephesus at the 
close of the second century, and who 
besides claimed to have and probably 
had special opportunities of knowing 
early traditions. It is confirmed more- 
over by the notice in Clement of 
Alexandria, who is the next in order 
of time, and whose means of infor- 
mation also were good, for one of 
his earliest teachers was an Ionian 
Greek (Strom, i. i, p. ^12). (2) The 
other view depends solely on the au- 
thority of the Dialogue of Gains and 
Proclus. I have given reasons else- 
where for questioning the separate ex- 
istence of the Koman presbyter Gains, 
and for supposing that this dialogue 
was written by Hippolytus bishop of 
Portus (Journal of Philology 1. p. 98 
sq., Cambridge, 1868). But however 
this may be, its author was a Roman 
ecclesiastic, and probably wrote some 
quarter of a centiury at least after 
Polycrates. In all respects therefore 
his authority is inferior. Moreover 
it is suspicious in form. It mentions 
four daughters instead of three, makes 
them all virgins, and represents them 
as prophetesses, thus showing a dis- 
tinct aim of reproducing the particu- 
lars as given in Acts xxi. 9 ; whereas 
the) account of Polycrates is divergent 
in all three respects. (3) A life-long 
friendship would naturally draw Philip 
the Apostle of Bethsaida after John, 

as it also drew Andi-ew. And, when 
we turn to St John's Gospel, we can 
hai'dly resist the impression that inci- 
dents relating to Andrew and Pluhp 
had a special interest, not only for 
the writer of the Gospel, but also for 
his hearers (John i. 40, 43 — 46, vi. 
5 — 8, xii. 20 — 22, xiv. 8, 9). Moreover 
the Apostles Andrew and Philip appear 
in this Gospel as inseparable com- 
panions. (4) Lastly ; when Papias men- 
tions collecting the sayings of the 
Twelve and of other early disciples 
from those who heard them, he gives 
a prominent place to these two Apos- 
tles tI 'Avdp^a^ ... elirev rj tL ^iXnnros, 
but there is no reference to Philip the 
Evangelist. When therefore we read 
later that he conversed with the 
daughters of Philip, it seems natiural 
to infer that the PhiUp intended is 
the same person whom he has men- 
tioned previously. It should be added, 
though no great value can be assign- 
ed to such channels of information, 
that the Acts of PhUip place the 
Apostle at Hierapolis ; Tischendorf, 
Act. Apost. Apocr. p. 75 sq. 

On the other hand, those who sup- 
pose that the EvangeHst, and not 
the Apostle, resided at Hierapolis, ac- 
count for the other form of the tra- 
dition by the natural desire of the 
Asiatic Chm'ches to trace their spiritual 
descent directly from the Twelve. This 
solution of the phenomenon might have 
been accepted, if the authorities in 
favour of Philip the Evangelist had 
been prior in time and superior in 
quahty. There is no improbability 
in supposing that both the PhUipa 
were married and had daughters. 

^ John xii. 20. 


his decease lived his two virgin daughters, who survived to a 
very advanced age and thus handed down to the second century 
the traditions of the earliest days of the Church. A third 
daughter, who was married, had settled in Ephesus, where 
her body rested \ It was from the two daughters who resided Their tra- 
at Hierapolis, that Papias heard several stories of the first collected 
preachers of the Gospel, which he transmitted to posterity in ^7 Capias, 
his work'. 

This Papias had conversed not only with the daughters 
of Philip, but also with at least two personal disciples of the 
Lord, Aristion and John the presbyter. He made it his busi- 
ness to gather traditions respecting the sayings of the Saviour 
and His Apostles ; and he published a work in five books, 
entitled An Exposition of Oracles of the Lord, using the 
information thus collected to illustrate the discourses, and 
perhaps the doings, of Christ as recorded in the Gospels', 
Among other stories he related, apparently on the authority 
of these daughters of Philip, how a certain dead man had 
been restored to life in his own day, and how Justus Barsabas, 
who is mentioned in the Acts, had drunk a deadly poison and 
miraculously escaped from any evil effects^. 

^ See above p. 45, note 3. * Euseb. 1. c. ws 5^ itari toi>s avroiis 

^ Euseb. H. E. iii. 39. This is the 6 na:rias yei'6/j.ei'os bL-q-yqffiv wapuXr]- 

general reference for all those particu- (pivai. davfiacrlav utrb [airb ?] rCbv rov 

lars respecting Papias which are de- ^iXiinrov dvyaripoiv ixvqjxovevei, to, vvv 

rived from Eusebius. <7T]iJ.eiwTioi>' veKpoO yap avdaraaLv kut 

3 See Westcott, Canon p. 6^. On airbv yeyowiav IjTope?, Kal av irdXiv 

the opinions of Papias and on the 'irepov Trapd8o^ov irepl 'Iovttov tov iiri- 

nature of his work, I may perhaps be KXyjOh/ra Bapa-a^dv yeyoi>6s x.r.X. The 

allowed to refer to articles in the information respecting the raising of 

Contemporary Review Aug. 1867, Aug. the dead man might have come from 

and Sept. 1875, where I have iuvesti- the daughters of Philip, as the context 

gated the notices of this father. The seems certainly to imply, while yet the 

object of Papias' work was not to con- event happened in Papias' own time 

struct a Gospel narrative, but to m- (/car* avrdv). It will be remembered 

terpret and illustrate those already that even Irenseus mentions similar 

existing. I ought to add that on two miracles as occurring in his own age 

minor points, the martyrdom of Papias {Hcer. ii. 32. 4). Eusebius does not 

and the identityof Philip with the Evan- say that the miraculous preservation 

gelist, I have been led to modify my of Justus Barsabas also occurred in 

views since the first article was written. the time of Papias. 



Life and If we may judge by his name, Papias was a native of 

of'^PAP°As. P^J'ygis,, probably of Hierapolis^ of which he afterwards be- 
came bishop, and mast have grown up to youth or early man- 
hood before the close of the first century. He is said to have 
suffered martyrdom at Pergamum about the year 165 ; but 
there is good reason for distrusting this statement, independ- 
ently of any chronological difficulty which it involves ^ Other- 

^ Papias, or (as it is very frequently 
vn-itten in inscriptions) Pappias, is a 
common Phrygian name. It is foimd 
seyeral times at Hierapolis, not only 
in inscriptions (Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 
oo- 393o> 391^ ^ add.) but even on 
coins (Mionnet rv. p. 301). This is 
explained by the fact that it was 
an epithet of the HierapoUtan Zeus 
(Boeckh 38 1 7 IlaTri^ Ad ffWTTJpi), just as 
in Bithynia this same god was called 
ndwas (Lobeck Aglaoph. p. 1048 ; see 
Boeckh Corp. Inscr. iii. p. 105 1). 
Hence as the name of a mortal it is 
equivalent to the Greek Diogenes ; e. g. 
Boeckh no. 3912 a add., Uairias rov 
ZrpdTwros o Ka\ovfj.evoi AioyivTjs. Galen 
also mentions a physician of Laodicea, 
bearing this name (Op. xii. p. 799, ed. 
Kiihn). In an inscription at Tra- 
janopoHs we meet with it in a curious 
conjunction with other familiar names 
(Boeckh no. 3865 i add.) UainrLas Tpo- 
^ifiov Kal Ti/xtK^s K.T.\. (see Wad- 
dington on Le Bas, Inscr. no. 718). 
This last belongs to the year a.d. 199. 
On other analogous Phrygian names 
Bee the introduction to the Epistle to 

Thus at Hierapolis the name Papias 
is derived from heathen mythology, 
and accordingly the persons bearing it 
on the inscriptions and coins are all 
heathens. It may therefore be pre- 
sumed that our Papias was of Gentile 
origin. The inference however is not 
absolutely certain. A rabbi of this 
name is mentioned in the Mishna 
Shekalim iv. 7, Edaioth vii. 6. These 

two references are given by Zunz Namen 
der Juden p. 16. 

' Chron. Pasch. sub. ann, 163 <t{/v 
T(j5 ayicp 5^ ^o\y^-dp7^a> Kal &\\oi 6' dtro 
^i\a5e\<pelai /J-aprvpouciv if Hifivpvri' Kal 
iv Hepydfiij} 8i ^repoi, iv oh rjv Kal Ila- 
TTi'as Kal dWoi noXKol, wv koI iyypafpa 
(pipovrat rd fiaprvpia. See also the 
Syi-ian epitome of Euseb. Chron. (ii. 
p. ■2i6ed. Schone) ' Cum persecutio in 
Asia esset, Polycarpos martyrium subiit 
et Papias, quorum martyiia in Ubro 
(scripta) extant,' but the Armenian 
version of the Chronicon mentions only 
Polycarp, while Jerome says ' Poly- 
carpus et Pionius fecere martyrii:m.' 
In his history (iv. 15) Ensebius, after 
quoting the Martyrdom of Polycarp at 
length, adds iv t^ avr^ 5^ irepl avrov 
ypa^-g Kal dWa fiapT\jpia ffwrjirTO 
... fxeO' uv Kal Mr]Tp65u)pot ... dvTJpriTaf 
Twv ye /xi]v t6t€ TrepL^oijTwv ixapTvpwv els 
Til iyvwpi^ero HtSvios ... i^TJs 8^ Kal 
dXXwi' ^1* Hepydpup TriXei r-^s 'Atr/as iiiro- 
fxvrjfiaTa fx.€p.apTvpTjK6T(i)v (piperai, Kdp- 
TTOV Kal IlaTrvXov Kal yvvatKos 'Aya- 
OovUris K.T.X. He here apparently falls 
into the error of imagining that Metro- 
dorus, Pionius, and all the others, were 
martyred under M. Aurelius, whereas 
we know from their extant Acts that 
some at least suffered in the Decian 
persecution. For the martyrdoms 
of Pionius and Metrodorias see Act. 
SS. Bolland. Feb. i ; for those of 
Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonica, ib. 
April 13. The Acts of the former, 
which are included in Euinart [Act. 
Sine. Mart. p. I'zo sq., 1689) are appa- 



wise he must have lived to a very advanced age. Eusebius, to Account of 
whom chiefly we owe our information respecting him, was 
repelled by his millennarian views, and describes him as a man 
of mean intelligence ^ accusing him of misunderstanding the 
Apostolic sayings respecting the kingdom of Christ and thus 
interpreting in a material sense expressions which were intended 
to be mystical and symbolical. This disparaging account, 
though one-sided, was indeed not altogether undeserved, for 
his love of the marvellous seems to have overpowered his 
faculty of discrimination. But the adverse verdict of Eusebius 
must be corrected by the more sympathetic language of Ire- 
nseus^ who possibly may have known him personally, and who 
certainly must have been well acquainted with his reputation 
and character. 

Much has been written respecting the relation of this 

rently the same which were seen by 
Eusebius. The only Acts of the latter 
known until lately were a late com- 
pilation of the Metaphrast, but the 
original document has been recently 
discovered and published by Aube 
(1881). See on the whole subject 
of these martyrdoms, Ignatius and 
Polycarp 1 pp. 622 sq., 695 sq. Eu- 
sebius, finding the Acts of aU these 
persons bound up together with those 
of Polycarp drew the hasty inference 
that they were martyred at the same 
time. With regard to Pionius and his 
companions, as we have seen, he was 
very wide of the mark; but Carpus, 
Papylus, and Agathonice, may have 
suffered within a few years of Poly- 
carp, though probably not during the 
same reign {I.e. p. 625 sq.). At all 
events this passage in the Ecclesiastical 
History, by a confusion of the names 
Papias and Papylus, must have given 
rise to the statement respecting Papias 
in the Chronicon Paschale and in the 
Syriac epitome, as it obviously has 
misled Jerome respecting Pionius. 


This part of the Chronicon Paschale 
is plainly taken from Eusebius, as the 
coincidences of expression and the 
sequence of events alike show. The 
martyrdom of Papias therefore ap- 
pears to be a fiction, and he may have 
died a natural death at an earlier date. 
PolycarjD's martyrdom is now shown 
by M. Waddington's investigations to 
have taken place a.d. 155 {Memoire 
sur la Chro7iologie du Rhetcur JElius 
Aristide p. 232 sq., in the Mem. de 
I'Acad. des Inscr. xxvi, 1867) ; see Ig- 
natius and Polycarp i p. 629 sq. 

^ H' E. iii. 39 (r<p6dpa a/xiKpos top 
vovy. In another paficage (iii. 36), as 
commonly read, Eusebius makes par- 
tial amends to Papias by calling him 
dvrip ra wavra otl /xoKLUTa XoyiuiTaTO'j 
Kal TTJs ypa(p7]s eidrj/j.wi', but this passage 
is found to be a spurious interpola- 
tion (see Contemporary Review, August, 
1867, p. 12), and was probably added 
by some one who was acquainted with 
the work of Papias and desired to do 
him justice. 

2 Ireu. V. 33. 3, 4. 


writer to the Canonical Gospels, but the discussion has no very- 
direct bearing on our special subject, and may be dismissed 
here\ One question however, which has a real importance 
as affecting the progress of the Gospel in these parts, has been 
raised by modern criticism and must not be passed over in 
A modern It has been supposed that there was an entire dislocation 
respecting and discontinuity in the history of Christianity in Asia Minor 
anU^*^ at a certain epoch; that the Apostle of the Gentiles was 

Asia Minor ignored and his teaching repudiated, if not anathematized; 

stated and . . 

discussed, and that on its rums was erected the standard oi Judaism, 

around which with a marvellous unanimity deserters from the 
Pauline Gospel rallied. Of this retrograde faith St John is 
supposed to have been the great champion, and Papias a 
typical and important representative ^ 

The subject, as a whole, is too wide for a full investigation 
here. I must content myself with occupying a limited area, 
showing not only the historical baselessness, but the strong 
inherent improbability of the theory, as applied to Hierapolis 
and the neighbouring churches. As this district is its chief 
stronghold, a repulse at this point must involve its ultimate 
defeat along the whole line. 
Theposi- Of St John himself I have already spoken^ It has been 
John shown that his language addressed to these churches is not 
only not opposed to St Paul's teaching, but presents remark- 
able coincidences with it. So far at least the theory finds no 
support; and, when from St John we turn to Papias, the case 
is not different. The advocates of the hypothesis in question 
and of lay the chief stress of their argument on the silence of Papias, 
or rather of Eusebius. Eusebius quotes a passage from Papias, 
in which the bishop of Hierapolis mentions collecting from 

1 See on this subject Westcott Canon or in Schwegler's NachapostoKsches 
p. 64 sq. ; Contemporary Review, Au- Zeitalter. It has been reproduced (at 
gust and September, 1875. least as far as regards the Asiatic 

2 The theory of the Tiibingen school Churches) by Kenan S. Paxil p. 366 sq. 
may be studied in Baur's Christliche ^ See above p. 41 sq. 

Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte 


trustworthy sources the sayings of certain Apostles and early 
disciples; but St Paul is not named among them. He also 
gives short extracts from Papias referring to the Gospels of 
St Matthew and St Mark, and mentions that this writer made 
use of the first Epistle of St John and the first Epistle of St 
Peter; but here again there is no allusion to St Paul's writings. 
Whether referring to the personal testimony or to the Canon- 
ical writings of the Apostles, Papias, we are reminded, is 
equally silent about St Paul 

On both these points a satisfactory answer can be given; 
but the two cases are essentially different, and must be con- 
sidered apart. 

(i) The range of personal testimony which Papias would be r- The 
able to collect depended on his opportunities. Before he had collected 
grown up to manhood, the personal reminiscences of St Paul ^ Capias. 
would have almost died out. The Apostle of the Gentiles had 
not resided more than three years even at Ephesus, and seems 
to have paid only one brief visit to the valley of the Lycus, even 
if he visited it at all. Such recollections of St Paul as might 
once have lingered here would certainly be overshadowed by 
and forgotten in the later sojourn of St John, which, beginning 
where they ceased, extended over more than a quarter of a cen- 
tury. To St John, and to those personal disciples of Christ who 
surrounded him, Papias and his contemporaries would naturally 
and almost inevitably look for the traditions which they so 
eagerly collected. This is the case with the leading representa- 
tive of the Asiatic school in the next generation, Irenseus, 
whose traditions are almost wholly derived from St John and 
his companions, while at the same time he evinces an entire 
sympathy with the work and teaching of St Paul. But indeed, 
even if it had been otherwise, the object which Papias had 
directly in view did not suggest any appeal to St Paul's 
authority. He was writing an 'Exposition of Oracles of the 
Lord,' and he sought to supplement and interpret these by 
traditions of our Lord's life, such as eyewitnesses only could 
give. St Paul could have no place among those personal 



disciples of Christ, of Avhom alone he is speaking in this preface 
to his work, which Eusebius quotes. 
2. His re- (2) But, though we have no right to expect any mention 
the Ca- 01 St Paul where the appeal is to personal testimony, yet with 
writings, qtiotations from or references to the Canonical writings 
the case, it may be argued, is different. Here at all events we 
might look for some recognition of St Paul. To this argument 
it would perhaps be a sufficient reply, that St Paul's Epistles 
do not furnish any matter which must necessarily have been 
introduced into a work such as Papias composed. But the 
complete and decisive answer is this; that the silence of Euse- 
bius, so far from carrying with it the silence of Papias, does not 
No weight even afford a presumption in this direction. Papias may have 
tached to quoted St Paul again and again, and yet Eusebius would see 
of Euse^°^ no reason to chronicle the fact. His usage in other cases is 
bius. decisive on this point. The Epistle of Polycarp which was 

read by Eusebius is the same which we still possess. Not 
only does it teem with the most obvious quotations from St 
Paul, but in one passage it directly mentions his writing to the 
Philippians^. Yet the historian, describing its relation to the 
Canonical Scriptures, contents himself with saying that it 'em- 
ploys some testimonies from the former Epistle of PeterV 
Exactly similar is his language respecting Irenseus also. Ire- 
nseus, as is well known, cites by name almost every one of St 
Paul's Epistles; yet the description which Eusebius gives under 
this same head, after quoting this writer's notices respecting 
the history of the Gospels and the Apocalypse, is that 'he 
mentions also the first Epistle of John, alleging very many 
testimonies from it, and in like manner also the former Epistle 

1 § 3. BO happens that in an earlier passage 

2 H. E. iv. 14 6 yi rot UoX^Kapiros (iii. 36) he has given an extract from 
iv Tji BrfKwdelffy rrpbs (ti\nrir7]alovs avrov Polycarp, in which St Paul's name 
ypacp^ (pepofxefy els 8evpo K^xRV'^-l^ Tia-i is mentioned ; but the quotation is 
fxapTvplais airh ttjs Uhpov irporipas (ttl- brought to illustrate the life of Igna- 
aToXiji. This is all that Eusebius tius, and the mention of the Apostle 
says with reference to Polycarp's know- there is purely accidental. 

ledge of the Canonical writings. It 


of Peter'.' There is every reason therefore to suppose that 
Eusebius would deal with Papias as he has dealt with Polycarp 
and Irenseus, and that, unless Papias had introduced some 
curious fact relating to St Paul, it would not have occurred 
to him to record mere quotations from or references to this 
Apostle's letters. It may be supposed that Eusebius records 
with a fair amount of attention references to the Catholic 
Epistles in early writers, because the limits of the Canon in 
this part were not accurately fixed. On the other hand the 
Epistles of St Paul were universally received and therefore 
did not need to be accredited by any such testimony. But 
whatever may be the explanation, the fact is patent, and it 
furnishes a complete answer to the argument drawn from his 
silence in the case of Papias ^ 

But, if the assumption has been proved to be baseless, have The views 

of P8<T)iflfl 

we any grounds for saying that it is also highly improbable ? inferred 

Here it seems fair to argue from the well-known to the un- ™ ^^^ 

=> associates. 

known. Of the opinions of Papias respecting St Paul we know 
absolutely nothing; of the opinions of Polycarp and Irenseus 
ample evidence lies before us. Noscitur a sociis is a sound 
maxim to apply in such a case. Papias was a companion of 
Polycarp, and he is quoted with deference by Irenseus ^ Is it 
probable that his opinions should be diametrically opposed to 
those of his friend and contemporary on a cardinal point affect- 

^ H, E. V. 8 /xi/jLVTjraL Si Kal ttjs Irenffius, because they are historically 

^ludvvov irpcoTri^ iTruToXyji, fiaprijpLa i^ connected with Papias ; but his sUence 

avTTJs irXeiara dacpiptav, o/xoius di Kal is even more remarkable in other cases. 

T^s UiTpov Trporipas. Thus, whon speaking of the epistle of 

2 It is necessary to press this argu- the Eoman Clement (H. E. iii. 38), he 

ment, because though it has never been alludes to the coincidences with the 

answered and (so far as I can see) is Epistle to the Hebrews, but omits to 

quite unanswerable, yet thoughtful mention the direct references to St 

men, who have no sympathy with the Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians 

Tubingen views of early Christian his- which is referred to by name. I have 

tory, still continue to argue from the discussed the whole subject in the 

silence of Eusebius, as though it had Contemporary Review, January, 1875, 

some real significance. To illustrate p. i6g sq. 
the omissions of Eusebius I have given 3 jren. HcEr. v. 33. 4. 

only the instances of Polycarp and 



rian views 
■with the 
tion of 
St Paul. 

NASIS bi- 

ing the very conception of Christianity (for the rejection of 
St Paul must be considered in this light) ? or that this vital 
heterodoxy, if it existed, should have escaped an intelligent 
critic of the next generation who had the five books of his 
work before him, who himself had passed his early life in Asia 
Minor, and who yet appeals to Papias as preserving the doc- 
trinal tradition which had been handed down from the Apostles 
themselves to his own time ? I say nothing of Eusebius himself, 
who, with a distinct prejudice against Papias, accuses him of 
no worse heresy in his writings than entertaining millennarian 

It may indeed be confessed that a man like Papias, whose 
natural bent, assisted by his Phrygian education, was towards 
sensuous views of religion, would not be likely to appreciate the 
essentially spiritual teaching of St Paul ; but this proves nothing. 
The difference between unconscious want of sympathy and con- 
scious rejection is all-important for the matter in hand. The 
same charge might be brought against numberless theologians, 
whether in the middle ages or in more modern times, into whose 
minds it never entered to question the authority of the Apostle 
and who quote his writings with the utmost reverence. Nei- 
ther in the primitive days of Christianity nor in its later 
stages has the profession of Chiliastic views been found in- 
consistent with the fullest recognition of St Paul's Apostolic 
claims. In the early Church Irenseus and Tertullian are 
notable instances of this combination ; and in our own age and 
country a tendency to millennarian speculations has been com- 
monly associated with the staunchest adherence to the funda- 
mental doctrines of St PauP. 

The literary character of the see of Hierapolis, which had 
been inaugurated by Papias, was ably sustained by Claudius 

^ In the earlier editions I had given a 
place to Abercius, as Bishop of Hiera- 
polis, between Papias and Claudius 
Ai^ollinaris following the extant Acts 
of Abercius. But the recent researches 
of Prof. "W. M. Eamsay have shown 

that his see was not Hierapolis on the 
Mffiander, but Hierapolis near Synnada. 
The question is discussed at greater 
length in my Ignatius and Folycarp 
I. p. 477 sq. 



Apollinaris. His surname, which seems to have been com- shop of 
mon in these parts ^ may have been derived from the patron ug, 
deity of HierapoHs'^ and suggests a Gentile origin. His inti- 
mate acquaintance with heathen literature, which is mentioned 
by more than one ancient writer, points in the same direction. 
During the reign of M. Aurelius he had already made himself 
a name by his writings, and seems to have been promoted to 
the see of Hierapolis before the death of that emperor ^ 

Of his works, which were very numerous, only a few scanty His liter- 
fragments have survived ^ The imperfect lists however, which ^^^ ^°^ 
have reached us, bear ample testimony both to the literary 

1 Some of the family, as we may 
infer from the monuments, held a 
high position in another Phrygian 
town. On a tablet at ^zani, on which 
is inscribed a letter from the emperor 
Septimius Sevenis in reply to the con- 
gratulations of the people at the ele- 
vation of Caracalla to the rank of Au- 
gustus (a.d. 198), we find the name of 
kA&y^'oc .AnoAAiNApioc . ayrhAia,- 
NOC, Boeckh 3837 (see in. p. 1066 
add.). In another inscription at the 
same place, the same or another mem- 
ber of the family is commemorated as 
holding the office of praetor for the 
second time, cxpATH rOYNTOC . TO . B . 
kA . AnoAAiN&piOY; Boeckh 3840, 
ib. p. 1067. See also the inscriptions 
3842 c, 3846 z {ib. pp. 1069, 1078) at 
the same place, where again the name 
ApoUinarius occurs. It is found also 
at Appia no. 3857 b {ib. p. 1086). In 
more distant regions we meet with at 
least two contemporaries of this Chris- 
tian father, bearing the same combi- 
nation of names, the one in Upper 
Egypt (Boeckh 4831 b), and the other 
at Athens {Inscr. Att. in. 1 140). At an 
earlier date, under Trajan, we are 
confronted with a Ti, Claudius Apol- 
linaris likev/ise in Upper Egypt 
(Boeckh 4714). At an earlier date 
one Claudius ApoUinaris is found in 

command of the Roman fleet at Mi- 
senum (Tac. Hist. iii. 57, 76, 77), and 
a person of the name appears in a 
Neapolitan inscription {G. I. L. x. 
3564). The name Apollinaris occurs 
also at Hierapolis itself, but combined 
with another nomen, Boeckh no. 3915, 
n.AiAioc.rr .(MAioY.*<noAAiNApioY. 
ioyAiano[y] . Yioc . ce[...] . attoAAi- 
NApic . M&KeAooN . K.T.X., which shows 
that both the forms, ApoUinaris and 
ApoUinarius, by which the bishop of 
Hierapolis is designated, are legitimate. 
The former however is the correct 
Latin form, the latter being the Greek 

More than a generation later than 
our Apollinaris, Origen in his letter to 
Africanus {Op. 1. 30, Delarue) sends 
greeting to a bishop bearing this name 
{rhv KoXhv riixQv irairav 'AiroXivapiov), of 
whom nothing more is known. 

2 Apollo Archegetes ; see above p. 
12, note I, 

3 Euseb. H. E. iv, 26, Chron. s. a. 
171, 172, ' Apollinaris Asianus, Hiera- 
politanus episcopus, insignis habetur.' 

* Collected in Routh's Reliquice Sa- 
cra I. p. 159 sq., and more recently in 
Otto's Corp. Apol. Christ, ix. p. 479 sq. 
For more respecting the writings of 
Claudius Apollinaris see Contemporary 
Review, February 1876, p. 486 sq. 


activity of the man, and to the prominence of the Church over 
which he presided, in the great theological and ecclesiastical 
controversies of the age. 
He takes The two questions, which especially agitated the Churches 

two chief of Asia Minor during the last thirty years of the first century, 
sies^onhe" ^®^"® *^^ celebration of the Easter festival and the pretensions 
•l^y- of the Montanist prophets. In both disputes Claudius Apolli- 

naris took an active and conspicuous part. 
I. The I. The Paschal controversy, after smouldering long both 

question, here and elsewhere, first burst into flames in the neighbouring 
Church of Laodicea\ An able bishop of Hierapolis therefore 
must necessarily have been involved in the dispute, even if he 
had been desirous of avoiding it. What side Apollinaris took 
in the controversy the extant fragments of his work do not 
by themselves enable us to decide ; for they deal merely with 
a subsidiary question which does not seriously affect the main 
issued But we can hardly doubt that with Polycarp of 
Smyrna and Melito of Sardis and Polycrates of Ephesus he 
defended the practice which was universal in Asia^, observing 
the Paschal anniversary on the 14th Nisan whether it fell on 
a Friday or not, and invoking the authority of St John at 
Ephesus, and of St Philip at his own Hierapolis*, against 
the divers^ent usage of Alexandria and Palestine and the 
2.Montan- 2. His writings on the Montanist controversy were still 
more famous, and are recommended as an authority on the 
subject by Serapion of Antioch a few years after the author's 

^ See below, p. 6r. ^ Eusebius represents the dioceses 

2 The main point at issue was of 'Asia' and the neighbourhood, as 

whether the exact day of the mouth absolutely unanimous ; H. E. v. 23 ti)^ 

should be observed, as the Quarto- 'Acias awd<T7]s al napoiKiai, v. 24 ttjs 

decimans maintained, irrespective of 'Acri'as irdarjs d/xa rats 6fj.6poi^ iKK^rjcriais 

the day of the week. The fragments of raj wapoiKias. ' Asia ' includes all this 

Apollinaris (preserved in the Chron. district, as appears from Polycrates, 

Pasch. p. 13) relate to a discrepancy ib. 

which some had found in the accounts * See Polycrates of Ephesus in 

of St Matthew and St John ; see Con- Euseb. H. E. v. 24. 
temporary Review I. c. p. 487 sq. 




death \ Though later than many of his works ^ they were 
written soon after Montanus had divulged the extravagance of 
his pretensions and before Montanism had attained its complete 
development. If a later notice may be trusted, Apollinaris was 
not satisfied with attacking Montanism in writing, but sum- 
moned at Hierapolis a council of twenty-six bishops besides 
himself, where this heresy was condemned and sentence of 
excommunication pronounced against Montanus together with 
his adherent the pretended prophetess Maximilla^ 

^ In Euseb. H.E. v. 19. 

2 Eusebius (H. E. iv. 27) at the 
close of his list of the works of Apol- 
linaris gives Kal dfiera ravra aw- 
iypaipe Karh rrji [twv^ ^pvyuv alpi- 
aebjs fJLer ov iroXiiu KaivoTOfirjOeiaTj^ 
Xpovov, rdre ye firjv wcnrep iKcpveiv dp- 
"Xpft-ivris, ^TL Tou Moi'Tavov afj.a rah aii- 
rod ipev5oTrpo(pr]TLaiv dpxa-s rrjs Trape/c- 
TpowTJs woiov/xivov, i.e. the vagaries of 
Montanus and his followers had al- 
ready begun when ApoUinaris i^Tote, 
but Montanism assumed a new phase 
shortly after. 

3 Included in the Libellus Synodi- 
cus published by Pappus ; see Labb. 
Cone. I. 615, ed. Coleti. Though this 
council is not mentioned elsewhere, 
there is no sufficient ground for ques- 
tioning its authenticity. The import- 
ant part taken by Apollinaris against 
the Moutanists is recognised by Eu- 
sebius H. E. V. 16, Trpbs T7]v XeyofJLivrjv 
KOTO, ^pvyas aipeaiv ottXoj' iax^pov Kal 
aKaTayuiviffTov eirl ttjs 'l€/3air6Xews rhv 

After mentioning the council the 
compiler of this Synodicon speaks thus 
of the false prophets; ot Kal p^accpri- 
fiws, iJToi Sai/jLovwvTes, Kadus (pT^criv 6 
avrbs warrip [i.e. 'AwoXivdpLos], rbv ^lov 
KaTiffTpeipav, avv avrdis Si Kar^Kpive 
Kal QeodoTov rhv aKvria. He evidently 
has before him the fragments of the 
anonymous treatises quoted by Euse- 

bius (if. E. V. 16), as the following 
parallels taken from these fragments 
show: ws iirl ivepyov/x&ip Kal dai/xo- 
V iavT L...^\aa<pT]pLeiv dtSdcrKouTos rov 
dir-qvdaoi(Tn.ivov ■7rvevf/.aTo;...T6v /St 61/ 
KaracyTpiipai '\ov5a vpodirov 51k7]v 
...olov iirlTpoirov riua Q eoooTov iroXiis 
alpel X6yos...TeTeXevTi^Kacn Movravos re 
Kal QeoSoTos Kal i] wpoeiprmivri ywf]. 
Thus he must have had before him a 
text of Eusebius (H. E. v. 16) which 
omitted the words Si; rti at the com- 
mencement, as they are omitted in 
some existing mss; and accordingly 
he ascribed aU the treatises to Apol- 
linaris. The parallels are taken from 
the first and second treatises ; the 
first might have been written by 
ApoUinaris, but the second was cer- 
tainly not by his hand, as it refers to 
much later events. 

Hefele {Conciliengeschichte r. p. 71) 
places the date of this council be- 
fore A.D. 150. But if the testimony 
of Eusebius is worth anything, this is 
impossible; for he states that the 
writings of Claudius Apollinaris a- 
gainst the Montanists were later than 
his Apology to M. Aurelius (see the 
last note), and this Apology was not 
written tiU after a.d. i 74. The chro- 
nology of Montanism is very perplex- 
ing, but Hefele's dates appear to be 
much too early. The Chronicon of 
Eusebius gives the rise of Montanism 



His other Nor were his controversial writings confined to these two 
gicaf^t- topics. In one place he refuted the Encratites' ; in another he 
"^^s- upheld the orthodox teaching respecting the true humanity 

of Christl It is plain that he did not confine himself to 
questions especially affecting Asia Minor; but that the doc- 
trine and the practice of the Church generally found in him 
a vigorous advocate, who was equally opposed to the novelties 
of heretical teaching and to the rigours of overstrained asceti- 

Nor again did Apollinaris restrict himself to controversies 
carried on between Christian and Christian. He appears alike 
as the champion of the Gospel against attacks from without, 
His apolo- and as the promoter of Christian life and devotion within the 
^^ ^° pale of the Church. On the one hand he was the author of an 

apology addressed to M. Aurelius^ of a controversial treatise in 
five books against the Greeks, and of a second in two books 

under a.d. 172 or 173, and this state- 
ment is consistent with the notices in 
his History. But if this date be cor- 
rect, it most probably refers to Mon- 
tanism as a distinct system; and the 
fires had probably been smouldering 
within the Church for some time be- 
fore they broke out. 

It will be observed that the writer 
of the Synodicon identifies Theodotus 
the Montanist (see Euseb. H. E. v. 3) 
with Theodotus the leather-seller who 
was a Mouarchian. There is no au- 
thority for this identification in Euse- 

1 Theodoret. H.F.'i. 21. 

2 Socr. H. E. iii. 7. 

3 Euseb. H. E. iv. 16, 27. He re- 
ferred in tliis Apology to the incident 
of the so-called Thundering Legion 
which happened a.d. 174; and as re- 
ported by Eusebius (H. E. v. 5), he 
stated that the legion was thus named 
by the emperor in commemoration of 
this miraculous thunderstorm. As a 
contemporary however, he must pro- 

bably have known that the title Legio 
Fulminata existed long before; and 
we may conjecture that he used some 
ambiguous expression implying that 
it was fitly so named {e.g. iirilivvfiov 
rrt% avvTvxla'i), which Eusebius and 
later writers misunderstood ; just as 
Eusebius himself (v. 24) speaks of 
IrenEeus as ipepiLwjxbs tis wv ry ir/xxnj- 
yopiq, aiiT^ re tcJj rpoTTi^ eiprjvoirows. Of 
the words used by Eusebius, olKelav t^ 
yeyovoTi Trpbs tov ^aaiKiws €[\r](p4vai 
vpoa-qyopiav, we may suspect that ot- 
Kdav Tip yeyovoTL Trpoarjyoplav is an ex- 
pression borrowed from Apolliniris 
himself, while irpbs tov ^aaiX^us d\r]- 
(piuai, gives Eusebius' own erroneous 
interpretation of his author's meaning. 
The name of this legion was Fulmi- 
nata not Fulmiiiatrix, as it is often 
carelessly written out, where the in- 
scriptions have merely fvlm or some 
other abbreviation. I have discussed 
this story of the Thundering Legion 
more fully in Ignatius and Folycarp, i. 
p. 472 sq. 


against the Jews ^ ; on the other we find mentioned among his 
writings a work in two books On Truth, and a second On Piety, ^^^ "^i- 

, . . -^ dactic 

besides several of which the titles have not come down to us^ works. 

He seems indeed to have written on almost every subject which 

interested the Church of his age. He was not only well versed 

in the Scriptures, but showed a wide acquaintance with secular 

literature also. His style is praised by a competent judge*, 

and his orthodoxy was such as to satisfy the dogmatic precision 

of the post-Nicene age^ 

These facts are not unimportant in their bearing on the 

question which has already been discussed in relation to Papias, 

If there had been such a discontinuity of doctrine and practice Important 

1/^1 1 r TT- T 11 • • bearing of 

m the Church oi Hierapohs as the theory in question assumes, these facts 

if the Pauline Gospel was repudiated in the later years of the ^fstory of 
first century and rank Judaism adopted in its stead, how can Christi- 
we explain the position of Apollinaris ? Obviously a counter- 
revolution must have taken place, which undid the effects of 
the former. One dislocation must have been compensated by 
another. And yet Irenseus knows nothing of these religious con- 
vulsions which must have shaken the doctrine of the Church to 
its foundations, but represents the tradition as one, continuous, 
unbroken, reaching back through the elders of the Asiatic 
Churches, through Papias and Polycarp, to St John himself — • 

1 The words koL irpb^ ''lovSalovs Trpw- Piety, of which we know from Photius 
Toc Kal devrepov are omitted in some Bibl. 14; see Contemporary Review, 
Mss and by Eufinus. They are found 1. c. p. 487. 

however in the very ancient Syriac ^ Theodoret. Hcer. Fab. iii. 2 dvrjp 

version, and are doubtless genuine, d^iiwaivos Kal irpbs rrj ypuaei twv deiuyv 

Their omission is due to the homoeote- koI ttjv ^^wOev TraiSelav irpoaeiXTjcpui. 

leuton, as they are immediately pre- So too Jerome, Ep. 70 (i. p. 428, ed. 

ceded by Kal irepl dXrjdelas npuTov Kal Vallarsi), names him among those who 

devrepov. were equally versed in sacred and pro- 

2 A list of his works is given by fane literature. 

Eusebius (H. E. iv. 27), who explains * Photius 1. c, d^td\o7os 5^ 6 avi]p 

that there were many others which Kal (ppdaeL d^coXoyii) KexpyifJ-^vos. 

he had not seen. This list omits the ^ Euseb. H. E. iv. 21, Jerome 

work on the Paschal Feast, which is 1. c, Theodoret. 1. c, Socr. U. E. 

quoted in the Clironicon Paschale iii. 7. 

p. 13 (ed. Diud.), and the treatise On 


Irenaeus who received bis Christian education in Asia Minor, 

who throughout Hfe was in communication with the churches 

there, and who had already reached middle age when this second 

revolution is supposed to have occurred. The demands on 

our credulity, which this theory makes, are enormous. And 

its improbability becomes only the more glaring, as we extend 

Solidarity our view. For the solidarity of the Church is the one striking 

Church in ^^^^ Unmistakably revealed to us, as here and there the veil 

the second wiiicl;^ shrouds the history of the second century is lifted, 
century. -^ *' 

Anicetus and Soter and Eleutherus and Victor at Rome, 
Pantffinus and Clement at Alexandria, Polycrates at Ephesus, 
Papias and Apollinaris at Hierapolis, Polycarp at Smyrna, 
Melito at Sardis, Ignatius and Serapion at Antioch, Primus 
and Dionysius at Corinth, Pothinus and Irenseus in Gaul, 
Philippus and Pinytus in Crete, Hegesippus and Narcissus 
in Palestine, all are bound together by the ties of a common 
organization and the sympathy of a common creed. The 
Paschal controversy is especially valuable, as showing the 
limits of divergence consistent with the unity of the Church. 
The study of this controversy teaches us to appreciate with 
ever-increasing force the pregnant saying of Irenaeus that 
the difference of the usage establishes the harmony of the 
faith \ 
Activity of Though Laodicea cannot show the same intellectual ac- 
tivity as Hierapolis, yet in practical energy she is not want- 
Martyr- One of those fitful persecutions, which sullied the rule of 

Sa^ar^s *^^^ imperial Stoic, deprived Laodicea of her bishop Sagaris^ 
The exact date of his martyrdom is not known ; but we cannot 
be far wrong in assigning it to an early year in the reign of 

^ Iren. in Euseb. 11. E. v. 24 i] dia- ^Afflas, <p Hayapis Kaipip ifiapTvprjcrev, 

<piovlci. TTis vriardas (the fast which pre- e-yivero ^Tijais iroW-q ev AaoSiKdq. 

ceded the Paschal festival) riiv o/iovomp ivepl tov trdex"- iP'Tr€<r6vTos Kard. Kaiphv 

rijs TricTTeus (jwlaTtjcn. eV ixeivaL^ rah -qp-lpai^, Kal iypacpr] raOra 

2 Melito ia Euseb. H. E. iv. 26 e-rrl {i. e. Melito's own treatise on the 

TlipoviWiov TlauXov avSvirdrov rijs Paschal festival). 


M. Aurelius, if not before \ His name appears to have been 
held in great honour^. 

But while the Church of Laodicea was thus contending Outbreak 
against foes without, she was also torn asunder by feuds within, chal con- ' 
Coincident with the martyrdom of Sagaris was the outburst of *^°^®^^y* 
the Paschal controversy, of which mention has been already 
made, and which for more than a century and a half disturbed 
the peace of the Church, until it was finally laid at rest by the 
Council of Nicaea. The Laodicean s would naturally regulate 
their festival by the Asiatic or Quartodeciman usage, strictly 
observing the day of the month and disregarding the day of 
the week. But a great commercial centre like Laodicea must 
have attracted large crowds of foreign Christians from Palestine 
or Egypt or Rome or Gaul, who were accustomed to commemo- 
rate the Passion always on a Friday and the Resurrection on 
a Sunday according to the western practice ; and in this way 
probably the dispute arose. The treatise On the PaschaL 
Festival by Melito of Sardis was written on this occasion to 
defend the Asiatic practice. The fact that Laodicea became 
the head-quarters of the controversy is a speaking testimony 
to the prominence of this Church in the latter half of the 
second century. 

At a later date the influence of Laodicea has sensibly de- Laodicea 

in Icitt-T 

clined. In the great controversies of the fourth and fifth history. 

1 The proconsulate of Paullus, under founded with Servius (ServilUus) (see 

whom this martyrdom took place is Borghesi iv. p. 493, viii. p. 504, 

dated by Borghesi (GHuvres yui. p. 507) Mommsen Rom. Forsch. i. p. 8, Ephem. 

somewhere between a.d. 163 — 168 ; by Epigr. 11. p. 33S). The mistake must 

"^Sididangion^Fastes des Provinces Asia- have been introduced very early into 

tiques p. 228) probably a.d. 164 — 166. the textof Eusebius. AH the Greek mss 

Some reasons are given in Ignatius have ServilUus {Servilius), and so it is 

and Polycarp i. p. 494, which seem given in the Syriac Version. Eufinus 

to point to A.D. 159 or 163; but the however writes it correctly S'erf/iws. 
exact year must remain uncertain. ^ gggijjes Melito (Z. c), Poly crates of 

All these solutions rest on the as- Ephesus refers to him with respect; 

Bumption that the ServilUus Paullus Euseb. H, E. v. 24 rl di Set \^yeiv 

here named must be identified with L, Xdyapiv iwldKOTrov Kal jxaprvpa, 5s iv 

Sergius Paullus of the inscriptions. AaodiKeig, K€KoliJ.r]Tai. 
The name Sergius is elsewhere con- 



The Arian 


A.D. 325/ 

A.D. 347. 

A.D. 381.] 

The Nes- 
torian and 

A.D. 431. 

A.D. 449. 


A.D, 451. 

centuries she takes no very conspicuous part. Among her 
bishops there is not one who has left his mark on history. And 
yet their names appear at most of the great Councils, in which 
they bear a silent part. At Nicsea she was represented by 
Nunechius\ He acquiesced in the decrees of the Council, and 
as metropolitan published them throughout the Churches of his 
province'"*. A little later this see lapsed into Arianism. At the 
synod of Philippopolis, composed of bishops who had seceded 
from the Council of Sardica, the representative of Laodicea was 
present and joined in the condemnation of the Athanasians. 
But the see had changed hands twice meanwhile. Cecropius 
had won the imperial favour by his abuse of the orthodox 
party, and was first promoted to Laodicea, whence he was 
translated to N^comedia^ He was succeeded by Nonnius, who 
signed the Arian decree at Philippopolis*. When Laodicea 
recovered her orthodoxy we do not know ; but it is perhaps 
a significant fact, that she does not appear at the second 
general Council, held at Constantinople (a.d. 381)^. At the 
third general Council, which met at Ephesus, she is represented 
by Aristonicus, who signs the decrees condemning Nestorius. 
Again in the next Christological controversy which agitated the 
Church she bears her part. At the notorious Bobbers' Synod, 
held also at Ephesus, she was represented by another Nune- 
chius, who committed himself to the policy of Dioscorus and 
the opinions of the heretic Eutyches®. Yet with the fickleness 
which characterized this see at an earlier date during the Arian 
controversy, we find this same Nunechius two years later at 
the Council of Chalcedon siding with the orthodox party and 

1 Labb. Cone. n. 57, 62 ; Cowper's 
Syriac Miscellanies -pT^. 11,28,34. He 
had also been present at the Synod 
of Ancyra held about a.d. 314 (see 
Galatians p. 34); ib. p. 41. 

2 Labb. Co7ic. 11. 236. 

2 Athanas. ad Episc, JEgypt. 8 [Op. 
I. p. 219), Hist. Arian. ad Mon. 74 
{ib. p. 307). 

* Labb. Cone. n. 744. 

s Cowper's Syriac Miscell. p. 39. 

^ Labb. Cone. iv. 892, 925, 928, 
1 107, 1170, 1171, 1185. In the Acts 
of this heretical council, as occasion 
ally in those of the Council of Chal- 
cedon, Laodicea is surnamed Trimi' 
taria (see above, p. 18, note 2). 



condemning the Eutychian heresy which he had so lately sup- 
ported \ 

The history of this church at a later date is such as might 
have been anticipated from her attitude during the period of 
the first Four General Councils. The same vacillation and 
infirmity of purpose, which had characterized her bishops in the 
earlier councils, marks the proceedings of their later successors'^. 

But, though this see thus continues to bear witness to its 
existence by the repeated presence of its occupants at councils 
and synods, yet its real influence on the Church at large has 
terminated with the close of the second century. On one 
occasion only did this Church assume a position of prominence. 
About the middle of the fourth century a council was held at 
Laodicea^ It was convened more especially to settle some 

of Lao- 

Its com- 


OF Laodi- 
CEA an ex- 

^ Labb. Cone, iv. 853, 119S) 1241, 
1312, 1384, 1392, 1445, 1463, 1481, 
i5or, 1732, 1736, 1745, 1752. Nune- 
chius was addressed by the Emperor 
Leo in his letter respecting the Council 
ofChalcedon. He was also one of those 
who signed the decree against simony 
at the Council of Constantinople (a,d. 
459) : Cone. V. 50. 

2 See for instance the tergiversa- 
tion of Theodorus of Laodicea in the 
matter of Photius and the 8th General 

3 This council cannot have been 
held earlier than the year 344, as the 
7th canon makes mention of the Pho- 
tinians, and Photinus did not attract 
notice before that year : see Hefele, 
Conciliengesch. i. p. 722 sq. In the 
ancient lists of Councils it stands after 
that of Antioch (a.d. 341), and before 
that of Constantinople (a.d. 381). 
Dr Westcott {History of the Canon 
p. 400) is incUned to place it about 
A.D. 363, and this is the time very 
generally adopted. 

Here however a difficulty presents 
itself, which has not been noticed 

hitherto. In the Syriac ms Brit. Mus. 
Add. 14,528, are lists of the bishops 
present at the earlier councils, includ- 
ing Laodicea (see Wright's Catalogue of 
the Syriac MSS in the British Museum, 
DcccvE, p. 1030 sq.). These lists have 
been published by Cowper {Syriac 
Miscell. p. 42 sq., Analecta Niccena 
p. 36), who however has transposed 
the lists of Antioch and Laodicea, so 
that he ascribes to the Antiochian 
Synod the names which really belong 
to the Laodicean. This is determined 
(as I am informed by Prof. Wright) 
by the position of the lists. 

The Laodicean list then, which seems 
to be imperfect, contains twenty names; 
and, when examined, it yields these re- 
sults, (i) At least three-fourths of the 
names can be identified with bishops 
who sat at Nicaa, and probably the 
exceptions would be fewer, if in some 
cases they had not been obscured by 
transcription into Syriac and by the 
errors of copyists. (2) When identi- 
fied, they are found to belong in almost 
every instance to Ccelesyria, Pha3nicia, 
Palestine, Cilicia, and Isauria, whereas 



Its decree points of ecclesiastical discipline ; but incidentally the assembled 
Canon. bishops were led to make an order respecting the Canon of 
Scripture^. As this was the first occasion in which the subject 
had been brought formally before the notice of an ecclesiastical 
assembly, this Council of Laodicea secured a notoriety which 
it would not otherwise have obtained, and to which it was 
hardly entitled by its constitution or its proceedings. Its 
decrees were confirmed and adopted by later councils both in 
the East and in the West^ 

apparently not one comes fromPhrygia, 
Lydia, or the other western districts 
of Asia Minor. 

Supposing that this is a genuine 
Laodicean list, we are led by the first 
result to place it as near in time as 
possible to the CouncU of Nicjea ; 
and by the second to question whether 
after all the Syrian Laodicea may not 
have been meant instead of the Phry- 
gian. On the other hand tradition is 
unanimous in placing this synod in 
the Phrygian town, and in this very 
Syriac ms the heading of the canons 
begins ' Of the Synod of Laodicea of 
Phrygia.' On the whole it appears 
probable that this supposed list of 
bishops who met at Laodicea belongs 
to some other Council. The Laodicean 
Synod seems to have been, as Dr 
Westcott describes it (1. c), 'A small 
gathering of clergy from parts of 
Lydia and Phrygia.' 

In a large mosaic work in the Church 
at Bethlehem, in which all the more 
important councils arc represented, 
we find the following inscription ; ['H] 
07^0 (Tivodos 7] if AaoSLKiiq. ttJs ^pvylas 
tQv Ke iiruTKOTTUV yiyovev Bia Mopravov 
K^ [''■]a[s] XotTras epiaeis' rov[Tovs] ws 
alpeTLKoiji Kal €xdpoi>f ttjs dXedeias i] 
ayla ffvvodos avede/xaTLffev (Ciampini de 
Sacr. MdiJ. a Constant, constr. p. 156; 
comp. Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 8953). 
The mention of Montauus might sug- 

gest that this was one of those Asiatic 
synods held against Montanism at 
the end of the second or beginning of 
the third century. But no record of 
any such synod is preserved elsewhere, 
and, as all the other Coivncils com- 
memorated in these mosaics are found 
in the list sanctioned by the Quini- 
sextine Council, this can hardly have 
been an exception. The inscription 
must therefore refer to the well-known 
Council of Laodicea in the fom-th cen- 
tury, which received this sanction. 
The description however is not very 
correct, for though Montanism is inci- 
dentally condemned in the eighth 
canon, yet this condemnation was not 
the main object of the council and oc- 
cupies a very subordinate place. The 
Bethlehem Mosaics were completed 
A.D. 1 1 69: see Boeckh G. J. 8736. 

1 The canons of this Council, 
59 in number, will be found in Labb. 
Cone. I. 1530 sq. ed. Coleti. The last 
of these forbids the reading of any 
but ' the Canonical books of the New 
and Old Testament. ' To tliis is often 
api)ended (sometimes as a 60th canon) 
a list of the Canonical books ; but 
Dr Westcott has shown that this hst 
is a later addition and does not 
belong to the original decrees of the 
council {Canon p. 400 sq.). 

2 By the Quiuisextine Council (a. d. 
692) in the East (Labb. Cojic. vii. 


More important however for my special purpose, than the Its decrees 
influence of this synod on the Church at large, is the light the Epi- 
which its canons throw on the heretical tendencies of this q^? *° *^® 
district, and on the warnings of St Paul in the Colossian sians. 
Epistle. To illustrate this fact it will only be necessary to 
write out some of these canons at length : 

29. * It is not right for Christians to Judaize and abstain Col. ii. 14, 
from labour on the sabbath, but to work on this same day. They ' ' ^'^* 
should pay respect rather to the Lord's day, and, if possible, ab- 
stain from labour on it as Christians. But if they should be 
found Judaizers, let them be anathema in the sight of Christ.' 

35. ' It is not right for Christians to abandon the Church Col. ii. 18. 
of God and go away and invoke angels (d<yye\ov<i ovo/jbd^eivY 

and hold conventicles (avvd^ea iroieiv); for these things are 
forbidden. If therefore any one is found devoting himself 
to this secret idolatry, let him be anathema, because he aban- 
doned our Lord Jesus Christ and went after idolatry.' 

36. 'It is not right for priests or clergy to be magicians 
or enchanters or mathematicians or astrologers^, or to make 

1345). and by the Synod of Aix-la- the same invocation, &rie . cj^yAaton . 
ChapeUe (A.D. 789) in the West (Cone, ^hn . noAiN . miAhcicon . kai . 


1 Theodoret about a century after ^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^ .^ ^.^^^^ 

<5^PX*>rr£Aoi . (J)YA&cceTAi . h . no- 

the Laodicean Council, commenting on 
Col. ii. 18, states that this disease 
(rh irdQoi) which St Paul denounces ^^^ • miAhciwn . KAi . nANrec . 01 . 
' long remained in Phrygia and Pi- kat . . . Boeckh writes, ' Etsi hie 
sidia.' 'For this reason also,' he titulus Gnosticorum et BasHidianorum 
adds, 'a synod convened in Lao- commentis prorsus congruus est, ta- 
dicea of Phrygia forbad by a decree men potuit ab ethnicis Milesiis scrip- 
the offering prayer to angels ; and tus esse ; quare nolui eum inter Chris- 
even to the present time oratories of tianos rejicere, quum prjesertim pub- 
the holy Michael may be seen among licse Milesiorum superstitionis docu- 
them and their neighbours.' See mentum insigne sit.' The idea of 
also below p. 68, note 2. A curi- the seven dyioi, combined ia the one 
ous inscription, found in the theatre apxayyeXos, seems certainly to point 
at Miletus (Boeckh C.I. 2895), Hlus- to Jewish, if not Christian, influences : 
trates this tendency. It is written Eev. i, 4, iii. i, iv. 5, v. 6. 
in seven columns, each having a dif- ^ Though there is no direct men- 
ferent planetary symbol, and a dif- tion of 'magic' in the letter to the 
ferent permutation of the vowels with Colossians, yet it was a characteristic 

COL. 5 


safeguards {<^v\aKTrjpLoi) as they are called, for such things are 
prisons (Seafiwr^pia) of their souls^ and we have enjoined 
that they which wear them be cast out of the Church.' 

37. 'It is not right to receive from Jews or heretics the 
festive offerings which they send about, nor to join in their 

38. 'It is not right to receive unleavened bread from the 
Jews or to participate in their impieties.' 

It is strange, at this late date, to find still lingering in 
these churches the same readiness to be 'judged in respect 
of an holiday or a new moon or a sabbath,' with the same 
tendency to relinquish the hold of the Head and to substitute 
' a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels,' which three 
centuries before had called forth the Apostle's rebuke and 
warning in the Epistle to the Colossians. 

Career of The career of Hierapolis is not so easily followed during these 

polis." centuries. So far as we can trace the facts, its history appears 
not to have differed materially from that of its neighbour 
Laodicea, though even less conspicuous than this latter. But 
there has been much confusion with another less considerable 
Phrygian city of the same name, Hieropolis or Hierapolis, near 
Synnada^; and notices have hitherto been appropriated to it, 

tendency of this part of Asia : Acts in the same Journal 1883, p. 424 sq. 

xix. 19, 2 Tim. iii. 8, 13. See the The most important result is the 

note on Gal. v. 20. The term /laOi)- rescue from oblivion of the city of 

fjLariKol is used in this decree in its Hieropolis near Synnada, which had 

ordinary sense of astrologers, sooth- a considerable Christian population as 

sayers. early as the second century. This 

^ A play on the double sense of <pv- place, which belonged to Phrygia Salu- 

XaKTTipiov (i) a safeguard or amulet, farts and therefore was a suffragan see 

(2) a giiard-house. of Synnada, is commonly written 

2 A flood of light has been thrown Hierapolis in the records of the Coun- 

upon the ecclesiastical arrangements cils and in the Notitise, and is even 

of Phrygia by the recent researches of declined 'lepas iroXews. Inconsequence 

Prof.W.M.Eamsay; see his papers Troi's of Eamsay's discoveries I have con- 

Villes Phrygiennes in the Bulletin de siderably modified what I wrote in the 

Cojresponda7iceUellenique, i!m]leti8S2, earUer editions of this work, as it is 

The Tale of Abercitis in the Journal of now clear that many bishops, who 

Uellenic Studies 1882, p. 339 sq., and have hitherto been assigned to the 

The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia city near the Lycus, belong to this 



which are now shown to belong to its less famous namesake. 
This latter place appears from the monumental inscriptions, as 
well as from other indications, to have occupied a position in 
the early history of Christianity quite out of proportion to its 
size or its political importance. 

During the flourishing period of the Eastern Church, Lao- Ecclesias- 
dicea appears as the metropolis of the province of Phrygia of Laodi- 
Pacatiana counting among its suffragan bishoprics the see of ^fg^^^^. 
Colossse'. Hierapolis would seem to have been one of the ^^• 
more important sees in this same province. At a later date 
Hierapolis itself was raised to metropolitan rank^. 

But while Laodicea and Hierapolis held the foremost place Obscurity 
in the records of the early Church, and continued to bear an 

namesake. This is the case not only 
with the early Abercius, who has 
been already mentioned (p. 54), but 
also with a later bishop of the same 
name, who was present at the Council 
of Chalcedon (Labb. Cone. iv. 862, 
1204, 1496, 1716, 1744). This con- 
fusion may suggest a suspicion, that 
even Papias and Claudius Apollinaris — 
one or both— may belong to this other 
HierapoKs ; but the consideration that 
the city near the Lycus had a Chris- 
tian community as early as the Apo- 
stolic times and that it was the larger 
place of the two will reassure us. 

^ A list of the bishoprics belonging 
to this province at the time of the 
Council of Chalcedon, on whose behalf 
their metropolitan signs the decrees, 
is given, Labb. Gone. rv. 1501, 17 16. 
Colossse is one of these, but HierapoUs 
is not. 

2 At the 5th and 6th General Coun- 
cils (a,d. 553 andA.D. 680) Hierapolis 
is styled a metropolis (Labb. Cone. vi. 
220, VII. 1068, 1097, 1 1 17); and in the 
latter case it is designated metropoUs 
of Phrygia Pacatiana, though this 
same designation is still given to Lao- 

dicea. Synnada retains its position 
as metropolis of Phrygia Saliitaris. 

From this time forward Hierapolis 
seems always to hold metropolitan 
rank. But no notice is preserved of 
the circumstances under which the 
change was made. It took place how- 
ever after Hierocles, and not impro- 
bably in A.D. 535 under Justinian : see 
Eamsay Cities and Bishopries of Phry- 
gia p. 374. Accordingly in the No- 
titice, which are later, it is entered 
as metropolis of another Phrygia Pa- 
catiana (distinct from that which has 
Laodicea for its metropolis) : Hieroclis 
Syneedemus et Notitice (ed, Parthey) 
Not. I, pp. 56, 57, 73; Not. 3, p. 124; 
Not. 6, p. 147; Not. 7, pp. 152, 161; 
Not. 8, pp. 164, 180; Not. 9, p. 197; 
Not. lo, p. 220. In this position it is 
placed out of the proper geographical 
order and near the close of the list, thus 
showing that its metropolitan jurisdic- 
tion was created at a comparatively late 
date. The number of dioceses in the 
province is generally given as 9 ; Nilua 
ib, p. 301. The name of the province 
is variously corrupte'd from IlaKaTiavrjs 
e.g. KawTrariav^s, KairiraBoKlas. 




active, though inconspicuous part, in later Christian histoiy, 
Colossae was from the very first a cipher. The town itself, as 
we have seen, was already waning in importance, when the 
Apostle wrote ; and its subsequent decline seems to have been 
rapid. Not a single event in Christian history is connected 
with its name; and its very existence is only rescued from 
oblivion, when at long intervals some bishop of Colossae at- 
taches his signature to the decree of an ecclesiastical synod- 
The city ceased to strike coins in the reign of Gordian (a.d. 
It is sup. 238 — 244)\ It fell gradually into decay, being supplanted by 
ChonL "^ ^^^ neighbouring town Chonae, the modern Chonos, so called 
from the natural funnels by which the streams here disappear 
in underground channels formed by the incrustations of traver- 
tine^ We may conjecture also that its ruin was hastened by 
a renewed assault of its ancient enemy, the earthquake ^ It is 

^ See Mionnet iv. p. 269, Leake 
Numism. Hellen. p. 45. 

2 Joannes Curopalata p. 686 (ed. 
Bonn.) (p7jij.7i...Toiis TovpKovs dirayy^X- 
Xovffa TTjv if Xuifats noXiTeiav Kai avrbv 
rbv irepi^orjTov iv dav/xaai Kcd dvaOrj- 
/jLa<Ti Tov Apxio'TpO'TT^yov vabv KardXa^elv 
ev yttaxaip?..- nal rb di] o-xfTXtcire/JOJ', 
fiTjdk Ttts TOV x'^'^f^"-'''''^ (nipayyas iv (^wep 
ol irapappiovres irora/iol inelae x'^vevb- 
fievoi did TTis TOV dpx^o'TpaT-^yov Tra- 
XatSj eiridrjiMlas Kal deoarjfjuas ws did 
TTpavovs offTaTovv to pevfia Kal Xidv 
evdpofjiovv ^oviTL, Toi/s KaTanetpevyoTas 
biaTrjpriaaL, k.t.X. 

The ' worship of angels ' is curiously 
connected with the physical features 
of the country in the legend to which 
Curopalata refers. The people were in 
imminent danger from a sudden inun- 
dation of the Lycus, when the arch- 
angel Michael appeared and opened a 
chasm in the earth through which the 
waters flowed away harmlessly : Hart- 
ley's Researches in Greece p. 53. See 
another legend, or another version of 
the legend, in which the archangel 
interposes, in Laborde p. 103. 

It was the birthplace of Nicetas 
Choniates, one of the most important 
of the Byzantine historians, who thus 
speaks of it (de Manuel, vi. 2, p. 230, 
ed. Bonn.); ^pvytav re Kal AaodiKetav 
dieKOdiv dcpiKvelrai is Xcivos, iriXtv ei)- 
dalfiova Kal fieydXriv, iroXai rds KoXacr- 
ffds, TTjv ifiov TOV avyypa(f>ius irarpida, 
Kal Tbv dpxayyeXiKbv vabv elcriwv fxeyidet 
/xiyiffTov Kal KaXXei KaXXiCTTOv ficra Kal 
davfiaalas x^'P^S airavra ipyov k.t.X., 
where a corrupt reading UaXaaads for 
KoXaffffds had misled some. It will be 
remembered that the words 7r6\ti' 
evdai/jLova Kal fieydXijv are borrowed from 
Xenophon's description of Colossae 
(Anab. i. 2. 6) : see above, p. 15, note 3. 

He again alludes to his native place, 
de Isaac, ii. 2, pp. 52, 3 rois AaodiKeis 
5^ ^pvyas /ivpiaxuis iKOKWffev, utxirep Kal 
Tovs Twv XwvCiv TCivinGiv oUriTopas, and 
Urbs Capta 16, p. 842, rb Si ^v i/xov 
TOV (T'jyypa(pic3is l^iKijra narpU al Xwvai 
Kal ^ dyxi-rippLuv Tavrrj ^pvyiK^ Aaodi- 

2 We may conjecture that it was the 
disastrous earthquake under GaUienus 
(a.d. 262) which proved fatal to Colos- 


commonly said that Chonse is built on the site of the ancient 
Colossse ; but the later town stands at some distance from the 
earlier, as Salisbury does from Old Sarum. The episcopal 
see necessarily followed the population ; though for some time 
after its removal to the new town the bishop still continued 
to use the older title, with or without the addition of Chonse 
by way of explanation, till at length the name of this primitive 
Apostolic Church passes wholly out of sight \ 

The Turkish conquest pressed with more than common Turkish 
severity on these districts. When the day of visitation came, 
the Church was taken by surprise. Occupied with ignoble 
quarrels and selfish interests, she had no ear for the voice of 
Him who demanded admission. The door was barred and 

sae (see above p. 38, note i). This is 
consistent with the fact above men- 
tioned that no Colossian coins later 
than Gordian are extant. We read 
indeed of an earthquake in the reign 
of Gordian himself ' eo usque gravis ut 
civitates etiam terrae hiatu deperirent' 
(Capitol. Vit. Gord. 26), but we are not 
informed of the locahties affected by 
it. When St Chrysostom wrote, the 
city existed no longer, as may be in- 
ferred from his comment (xi. p. 323) 
"H 7r6Xts Tijs ^pvyias ■^v Kal dijXov ix 
ToO TTjv AaoSiKfiav irXTjaiov elvai. 

On the other hand M. Eenan 
(L'Antechrist p. 99) says of the earth- 
quake under Nero, 'Colosses ne sut 
se relever ; eUe disparut presque du 
nombre des ^glises ' ; and he adds in a 
note 'Colosses n'a pas de monnaies 
imp^riales [Waddington].' For this 
statement there is, I beheve, no au- 
thority ; and as regards the coins it is 
certainly wrong. 

Earthquakes have been largely in- 
strumental in changing the sites of 
cities situated within the range of 
their influence. Of this we have an 
instance in the neighbourhood of 

Colossse. Hamilton (i. p. 51 4) reports 
that an earthquake which occurred at 
Denizli about a hundred years ago 
caused the inhabitants to remove their 
residences to a different locaUty, where 
they have remained ever since. 

1 At the CouncU of Chalcedon (a.d. 
451) Nunechius of Laodicea subscribes 
'for the absent bishops under him,' 
among whom is mentioned 'EwKpavlou 
irdXews KoXaacrwv (Labb. Cone. rv. 1501, 
ed. Coleti; comp. ib. 1745). At the 
Quinisextine Council (a.d. 692) occurs 
the signature of Koa/uLds iiriaKo-n-os irb- 
Xews KoXacro-tt'^y {sic) Ila/caTiai'Tjs {Cone. 
vn. 1408). At the 2nd CouncU of 
Nic£ea (a.d. 787) the name of the see 
is in a transition state; the bishop 
Theodosius (or Dositheus) signs him- 
self sometimes XuvQv 57701 KoXacrffuiv, 
sometimes XcavQv simply {Cone. vni. 
689, 796, 988, I200, 1222, 1357, 1378, 
1432, 1523, 1533, in many of which 
passages the word Xwi'dsv is grossly 
corrupted). At later Councils the see 
is called Xuvai; and this is the name 
which it bears in the Notitice (pp. 97, 
127, 199, 222, 303, ed. Parthey). 


the knock unheeded. The long-impending doom overtook 
her, and the golden candlestick was removed for ever from 
the Eternal Presence \ 

1 For the remains of Christian Hierapolis is given in Fergusson's II- 

Churehes at Laodicea see Fellows Asia lustrated Handhooh of Architecture ii. 

Minor p. 282, Pococke p. 74. A de- p. 967 sq. ; comp, Te^Qx Asie Mineure 

Ecription of three fine churches at i. p. 143. 



FROM the language of St Paul, addressed to the Church Two ele- 
of Colossse, "we may infer the presence of two disturbing i^ the 


elements which threatened the purity of Christian faith and J^g^gg^^^ 
practice in this community. These elements are distinguish- 
able in themselves, though it does not follow that they present 
the teaching of two distinct parties. 

1. A mere glance at the epistle suffices to detect the x. Judaic. 
presence of Judaism in the teaching which the Apostle com- 
bats. The observance of sabbaths and new moons is decisive 

in this respect. The distinction of meats and drinks points in 
the same direction \ Even the enforcement of the initiatory 
rite of Judaism may be inferred from the contrast implied in 
St Paul's recommendation of the spiritual circumcision '. 

2. On the other hand a closer examination of its language 2. Gnos- 
shows that these Judaic features do not exhaust the portrai- 
ture of the heresy or heresies against which the epistle is 
directed. We discern an element of theosophic speculation, 
which is alien to the spirit of Judaism proper. We are con- 
fronted with a shadowy mysticism, which loses itself in the 
contemplation of the unseen world. We discover a tendency 

to interpose certain spiritual agencies, intermediate beings, 
between God and man, as the instruments of communication 
and the objects of worship ^ Anticipating the result which 
will appear more clearly hereafter, we may say that along 

1 Col. ii. 16, 17, 21 sq. * ii. 11. ^ ii. 4, 8, 18, 23. 


Are these 
or sepa- 

reasons for 
one heresy 
only, in 
which they 
are fused. 


with its Judaism there was a Gxostic element in the false 
teaching which prevailed at Colossse. 

Have we then two heresies here, or one only 1 Were 
these elements distinct, or were they fused into the same 
system ? In other words, Is St Paul controverting a phase 
of Judaism on the one hand, and a phase of Gnosticism on 
the other; or did he find himself in conflict with a Judseo- 
Gnostic heresy which combined the two ^ ? 

On closer examination we find ourselves compelled to 
adopt the latter alternative. The epistle itself contains no 
hint that the Apostle has more than one set of antagonists 
in view; and the needless multiplication of persons or events 
is always to be deprecated in historical criticism. Nor indeed 
does the hypothesis of a single complex heresy present any 

1 The Colossian heresy has been 
made the subject of special disserta- 
tions by ScHXECKENBCBGER BeitrSge 
zur Einleitung ins N. T. (Stuttgart 
1832), and Veher das Alter derjudischen 
Proselyten-Taufe, nebst einer Beilage 
Hber die Irrlehrer zu Colossd (BerUn 
1828); by OsiANDEB Ueber die Colos- 
sischen Irrlehrer {TUbinger Zeitschrift 
for 1834, in. p. 96 sq.) ; and by Rhein- 
WALoDe Pseudodoctoribus Colossensibus 
(1834). But more valuable contribu- 
tions to the subject will often be found 
in introductions to commentaries on 
the epistle. Those of Bleek, Davies, 
Meteb, Olshausen, Steigeb, De 
Wexte, and Klopper may be men- 
tioned. Among other works which 
may be consulted are Baub Der Apos- 
tel Paulus p. 417 sq. ; Boehmeb 
Isagoge in Epistolam ad Colossenses, 
Berlin 1829, p. 56 sq., p. 277 sq.; 
Burton Inquiry into the Heresies of 
the Apostolic Age, Lectures iv, v; 
EwALD Die Sendschreiben des Apostels 
Paulus p. 462 sq. ; Hilgenfeld 
Der Gnosticistnu^ u. das Neue Testa- 
ment in the Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. 

Theol. XIII. p. 233 sq. ; E. A. Lip- 
sius in Schenkels Bibel-Lexicon, s, v. 
Gnosis; Mayerhoff Der Brief an 
die Colosser p. 107 sq. ; Neandeb 
Planting of the Christian Church i. 
p. 319 sq. (Eng. Trans.) ; Pbes- 
SENSE Trois Premiers Siecles 11. p. 
194 sq. ; Storb Opuscula n. p. 149 
sq. ; Thiersch Die Kirche im Apos- 
tolischen Zeitalter p. 146 sq. Of all 
the accounts of these Colossian false 
teachers, I have found none more 
satisfactory than that of Neander, 
whose opinions are followed in the 
main by the most sober of later 

In the investigation which follows I 
have assumed that the Colossian false 
teachers were Christians in some sense. 
The views maintained by some earher 
critics, who regarded them as (i) Jews, 
or (2) Greek philosophers, or (3) Chal- 
dean magi, have found no favour and 
do not need serious consideration. See 
Meyer's introduction for an enumera- 
tion of such views. A refutation of 
them wUl be found in Bleek's Vor- 
lesungen p. 12 sq. 


real difficulty. If the two elements seem irreconcilable, or at 
least incongruous, at first sight, the incongruity disappears on 
further examination. It will be shown in the course of this 
investigation, that some special tendencies of religious thought 
among the Jews themselves before and about this time pre- 
pared the way for such a combination in a Christian community 
like the Church of Colossaa \ Moreover we shall find that the 
Christian heresies of the next succeeding ages exhibit in a more 
developed form the same complex type, which here appears in 
its nascent state "^ ; this later development not only showing 
that the combination was historically possible in itself, but 
likewise presupposing some earlier stage of its existence such 
as confronts us at Colossse. 

But in fact the Apostle's language hardly leaves the ques- S. Paul's 
tion open. The two elements are so closely interwoven in ig^^cL^ve 
his refutation, that it is impossible to separate them. He on this 
passes backwards and forwards from the one to the other 
in such a way as to show that they are only parts of one 
complex whole. On this point the logical connexion of the 
sentences is decisive : ' Beware lest any man make spoil of 
you through philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of 
men, after the rudiments of the world... Ye were circumcised 
with a circumcision not made with hands... And you... did He 
quicken,... blotting out the handwriting of ordinances which 
was against you... Let no man therefore judge you in meat 
or drink, or in respect of a holy day or a new moon or a 
sabbath... Let no man beguile you of your prize in a self- 
imposed humility and service of angels... If ye died with Christ 
from the rudiments of the world, why. ..are ye subject to 
ordinances... which things have a show of wisdom in self- 
imposed service and humility and hard treatment of the body, 
but are of no value against indulgence of the flesh ^' Here 

^ See below, p. 83 sq. elements. He argues that ' these two 

* See below, p. 107 sq. tendencies are related to one another 

^ Col.ii. 8 — 23. HUgenf eld (Der Gnos- as fire and water, and nothing stands 

ticismus etc. p. '250 sq.) contends stre- in the way of allowing the author after 

nuously for the separation of the two the first side-glance at the Gnostics to 


the superior wisdom, the speculative element which is charac- 
teristic of Gnosticism, and the ritual observance, the practical 
element which was supplied by Judaism, are regarded not 
only as springing from the same stem, but also as inter- 
twined in their g^o^vth. And the more carefully we examine 
the sequence of the Apostle's thoughts, the more intimate will 
the connexion appear. 

Gnostic- Having described the speculative element in this complex 

be defined ^^resy provisionally as Gnostic, I purpose enquiring in the 
^^'^b^d ^^^^ place, how far Judaism prior to and independently of 
Christianity had allied itself with Gnostic modes of thought ; 
and afterwards, whether the description of the Colossian heresy 
is such as to justify us in thus classing it as a species of 
Gnosticism. But, as a preliminary to these enquiries, some de- 
finition of the word, or at least some conception of the leading 
ideas which it involves, will be necessary. With its complex 
varieties and elaborate developments we have no concern here : 
for, if Gnosticism can be found at all in the records of the 

pass over with ver. ii to the Judaizers, separate heresies are attacked, but on 
with whom Col. ii. 1 6 sq. is exclusively the contrary the sentences are con- 
concerned.' He supposes therefore nected in a logical sequence (e.g. ver. 
that ii. 8 — lo refers to 'pure Gnostics,' 9 S^t, lo os, ii iv <f, 12 ev (^, 13 Kal, 
and ii. 16 — 23 to 'pure Judaizers.' i6oiip). I hope to make this point clear 
To this it is sufficient to answer (i) in my notes on the passage. 
That, if the two elements be so an- The hypothesis of more than one 
tagonistic, they managed nevertheless heresy is maintained also by Hein- 
to reconcile their differences ; for we richs (Koppe^. Part 2, 1803). At 
find them united in several Judso- an earher date it seems to be favoured 
Gnostic heresies in the first half of by Grotius (notes on ii. 16, 21); but 
the second century, ^w(ii/j.oaav yap, his language is not very explicit. And 
6vT€S ^x^iaroL TO irplv, vvp Kal OaXacraa, earher still Calvin in his argimient to 
Kol TO. TricTT idei^arrif ; (2) That the the epistle writes, ' Putant aUqui duo 
two passages are directly connected fuisse hominum genera, qui abducere 
together by rd <rTO(x«'a tov Koap-ov, teutarent Colossenses ab evangelii pu- 
which occurs in both w. 8, 20 ; (3) ritate,' but rejects this view. The same 
That it is not a simple transition once question is raised with regard to the 
for all from the Gnostic to the Judaic heretical teachers in the Pastoral Epis- 
element, but the epistle passes to and ties and in Ignatius, and should be 
fro several times from the one to the answered in the same way ; see Igna- 
other ; while no hint in given that two tim and Folycarp i. p. 364. 


Apostolic age, it will obviously appear in a simple and ele- 
mentary form. Divested of its accessories and presented in its 
barest outline, it is not difficult of delineation \ 

1. As the name attests ^ Gnosticism implies the possession i. lutel- 
of a superior wisdom, which is hidden from others. It makes a elusive- 
distinction between the select few who have this higher gift, ^®^^ °* 

° o ' Gnostic- 

and the vulgar many who are without it. Faith, blind faith, ism. 
suffices the latter, while knowledge is the exclusive possession 
of the former. Thus it recognises a separation of intellectual 
caste in religion, introducing the distinction of an esoteric 
and an exoteric doctrine, and interposing an initiation of some 
kind or other between the two classes. In short it is animated 
by the exclusive aristocratic spirit ^ which distinguishes the 
ancient religious, and from which it was a main function of 
Christianity to deliver mankind. 

2. This was its spirit ; and the intellectual questions, on 2. Specu- 

which its energies were concentrated and to which it professed ^g^g ^f 

to hold the key, were mainly twofold. How can the work of Gi^ostic- 
•' ■" '' ism. 

creation be explained ? and, How are we to account for the ex- 
istence of evil*? To reconcile the creation of the world and Creation 
the existence of evil with the conception of God as the abso- ° o^id and 

lute Being, was the problem which all the Gnostic systems set existence 

»' ^ . -^ . of evil, 

themselves to solve. It will be seen that the two questions 

cannot be treated independently but have a very close and 

intimate connexion with each other. 

^ The chief authorities for the his- they designated the possessors of this 

tory of Gnosticism are Neander higher gnosis, see the notes on Col. i. 

Church Histonj 11. p. i sq. ; Baub Die 28, and Phil. iii. 15. 

Christliche Gnosis (Tiibingen, 1835) ; * See Neander 1. c. p. i sq., from 

Matter Histoire Critique du Gnos- whom the epithet is borrowed. 

ticisme (2nd ed., Strasbourg and Paris, * The fathers speak of this as the 

1843); E. A. Lipsius Gnosticismus in main question about which the Gno- 

Ersch u. Gruber s. v. (Leipzig, i860) ; sties busy themselves ; Unde malum? 

Mansel Gnostic Heresies of the First irodev i] /ca/c/a ; Tertull. de Prascr. 7, 

and Second Centuries (London, [875) ; adv. Marc. i. 2, Eus. H. E. v. 27 ; 

and for Gnostic art, King Gnostics passages quoted by Baur Chiistliche 

and their Remains (London 1864). Gnosis p. 19. On the leading concep- 

^ See esp. Jien. i. 6. i sq. , Clem. tions of Gnosticism see especially Ne- 

Alex. Strom, ii p. 433 sq. (Potter). On ander, 1. c. p. 9 sq. 
the words xAeiot, TrvevnariKol, by which 


Existence The Gnostic argument ran as follows : Did God create the 
how to be world out of nothing, evolve it from Himself ? Then, God 
explained? jjeing perfectly good and creation haxnng resulted from His 
sole act without any opposing or modifying influence, evil 
would have been impossible ; for otherwise we are driven to 
the conclusion that God created evil. 
Matter This solution being rejected as impossible, the Gnostic was 

of evil. obliged to postulate some antagonistic principle independent 
of God, by which His creative energy was thwarted and limited. 
This opposing principle, the kingdom of evil, he conceived to 
be the world of matter. The precise idea of its mode of 
operation varies in different Gnostic systems. It is sometimes 
regarded as a dead passive resistance, sometimes as a turbulent 
active power. But, though the exact point of view may shift, 
the object contemplated is always the same. In some way or 
other evil is regarded as residing in the material, sensible 
world. Thus Gnostic speculation on the existence of evil ends 
in a dualism. 
Creation, This point being conceded, the ulterior question arises : 

explained? How then is creation possible ? How can the Infinite com- 
municate with the Finite, the Good with the Evil ? How can 
God act upon matter ? God is perfect, absolute, incompre- 

This, the Gnostic went on to argue, could only have been 
possible by some self-limitation on the part of God. God must 
express Himself in some way. There must be some evolution, 
Doctrine some effluence, of Deity. Thus the Divine Being germinates, as 
tions. " it were ; and the first germination again evolves a second from 
itself in like manner. In this way we obtain a series of succes- 
sive emanations, which may be more or fewer, as the requirements 
of any particular system demand. In each successive evolution 
the Divine element is feebler. They sink gradually lower and 
lower in the scale, as they are farther removed from their 
source ; until at length contact with matter is possible, and 
creation ensues. These are the emanations, aeons, spirits, or 
angels, of Gnosticism, conceived as more or less concrete and 


personal according to the different aspects in which they are 
regarded in different systems. 

3. Such is the bare outline (and nothing more is needed 3. Practi- 
for my immediate purpose) of the speculative views of Gnostic- of Gnostic- 
ism. But it is obvious that these views must have exerted ^^'^• 
a powerful influence on the ethical systems of their advocates, 
and thus they would involve important practical consequences. 
If matter is the principle of evil, it is of infinite moment for a 
man to know how he can avoid its baneful influence and thus 
keep his higher nature unclogged and unsullied. 

To this practical question two directly opposite answers Two oppo- 

1 site ethi- 

were given ^: ^ ^^l,^,, 

(i) On the one hand, it was contended that the desired (i) Rigid 
end might best be attained by a rigorous abstinence. Thus ^^^'^ ^''^^'"' 
communication with matter, if it could not be entirely avoided, 
might be reduced to a minimum. Its grosser defilements 
at all events would be escaped. The material part of man 
would be subdued and mortified, if it could not be annihilated ; 
and the spirit, thus set free, would be sublimated, and rise to 
its proper level. Thus the ethics of Gnosticism pointed in the 
first instance to a strict asceticism. 

(ii) But obviously the results thus attained are very slight (ii) Un- 
and inadequate. Matter is about us everywhere. We do but liceuae. 
touch the skirts of the evil, when we endeavour to fence our- 
selves about by prohibitive ordinances, as, for instance, when we 
enjoin a spare diet or forbid marriage. Some more compre- 
hensive rule is wanted, which shall apply to every contingency 
and every moment of our lives. Arguing in this way, other 
Gnostic teachers arrived at an ethical rule directly opposed to 
the former. ' Cultivate an entire indifference,' they said, 
' to the world of sense. Do not give it a thought one way or 

1 On this point see Clem. Strom, iii. nocrvvrjs KarayyiWovai, with the whole 

5 {P- 529) e's Suo SieXovres irpdyfiaTa a- passage which follows. As examples 

irtiffas rds alpiaeis airoKpivwiJ.e9a av- of the one extreme may be instanced 

Tois' 17 yap Toi &dia<p6pws ^tjv SiSda- the Carpocratians and Cainites: of the 

Kov(nv, Tj t6 viripTovou dyovcrai. iyKpa- other the Encratites. 
reiav 6id dvaae^elas Kal (piXaTrexGrj- 



ence of 
ism and 
its subse- 
quent con- 

the other, but follow your own impulses. The ascetic prin- 
ciple assigns a certain importance to matter. The ascetic fails 
in consequence to assert his own independence. The true rule 
of life is to treat matter as something alien to you, towards 
which you have no duties or obligations and which you can 
use or leave unused as you like\' In this way the reaction from 
rigid asceticism led to the opposite extreme of unrestrained 
licentiousness, both ahke springing from the same false concep- 
tion of matter as the principle of evil. 

Gnosticism, as defined by these characteristic features, has 
obviously no necessary connexion with Christianity ^ Christi- 
anity would naturally arouse it to unwonted activity, by lead- 
ing men to dwell more earnestly on the nature and power of 
evil, and thus stimulating more systematic thought on the 
theological questions which had already arrested attention. 
After no long time Gnosticism would absorb into its system 
more or fewer Christian elements, or Christianity in some of 
its forms would receive a tinge from Gnosticism. But the 
thing itself had an independent root, and seems to have been 

1 See for instance the description 
of the Carpocratians in Iren. i. 25. 3 sq., 
ii. 32. I sq., HippoL Har. vii. 32, Epi- 
phan. Hcer. xxvii. 2 sq. ; from which 
passages it appears that they justified 
their moral profligacy on the principle 
that the highest perfection consists in 
the most complete contempt of mun- 
dane things. 

- It ■will be seen from the descrip- 
tion ki the text, that Gnosticism (as 
I have defined it) presupposes only a 
belief in one God, the absolute Being, 
as against the vulgar polytheism. All 
its essential features, as a speculative 
system, may be explained from this 
simple element of belief, without any 
intervention of specially Christian or 
even Jewish doctrine. Christianity 
added two new elements to it; (i) the 
idea of Redemption, (2) the person of 
Christ. To explain the former, and to 

find a place for the latter, henceforth 
become prominent questions which 
press for solution ; and Gnosticism in 
its several developments undergoes 
various modifications in the endeavour 
to solve them. Eedemption must be 
set in some relation to the fundamen- 
tal Gnostic conception of the antagon- 
ism between God and matter ; and 
Christ must have some place found 
for Him in the fundamental Gnostic 
doctrine of emanations. 

If it be urged that there is no autho- 
rity for the name ' Gnostic ' as apphed 
to these pre-Christian theosophists, I 
am not concerned to prove the con- 
trary, as my main position is not 
affected thereby. The term ' Gnostic ' 
is here used, only because no other is 
so convenient or so appropriate. See 
note 2, p. 81. 


prior in time. The probabilities of the case, and the scanty 
traditions of history, alike point to this independence of the 
two^ If so, it is a matter of little moment at what precise 
time the name 'Gnostic' was adopted, whether before or after 
contact with Christianity ; for we are concerned only with the 
growth and direction of thought which the name represents ^ 

If then Gnosticism was not an offspring of Christianity, Its alli- 
but a direction of religious speculation which existed indepen- Judaism 
dently, we are at liberty to entertain the question whether it ^hristi- 
did not form an alliance with Judaism, contemporaneously anity. 
with or prior to its alliance with Christianity. There is at 
least no obstacle which bars such an investigation at the out- 

^ This question will require closer 
investigation when I come to discuss 
the genuineness of the Epistle to the 
Colossians. Meanwhile I content my- 
self with referring to Baur Christliche 
Gnosis p. 29 sq. and Lipsius Gnosti- 
cismus p. 230 sq. Both these writers 
concede, and indeed insist upon, the 
non-Christian basis of Gnosticism, at 
least so far as I have maintained it iu 
the text. Thus for instance Baur 
says (p. 52), 'Though Christian gnosis 
is the completion of gnosis, yet the 
Christian element in gnosis is not so 
essential as that gnosis cannot still be 
gnosis even without this element. But 
just as we can abstract it from the 
Christian element, so can we also go still 
further and regard even the Jewish as 
not strictly an essential element of 
gnosis.' In another work (Die dreffirstew 
Jahrhunderte p. 167, ist ed.) he ex- 
presses himself still more strongly to 
the same effect, but the expressions 
are modified in the second edition. 

^ "We may perhaps gather from the 
notices which are preserved that, though 
the substantive yvwis was used with 
more or less precision even before con- 
tact with Christianity to designate the 
superior illumination of these opinions, 

the adjective yvcjariKoi was not distinct- 
ly applied to those who maintained 
them till somewhat later. Still it is 
possible that pre-Christian Gnostics 
already so designated themselves. 
Hippolytus speaks of the Naassenes 
or Ophites as giving themselves this 
name; Har. v. 6 fiera 8i radra iire- 
KaXeaav eavroiis yvuffTiKovs, «f>dffKOPTes 
fiovoi. TCI. pddr] yiviicTKeiv; comp. §§ 8, 
II. His language seems to imply 
(though it is not exphcit) that they 
were the first to adopt the name. The 
Ophites were plainly among the earliest 
Gnostic sects, as the heathen element 
is still predominant in their teaching, 
and their Christianity seems to have 
been a later graft on their pagan theo- 
sophy ; but at what stage in their 
development they adopted the name 
yvoKTTiKoi does not appear. Irenseus 
{Hcer. i. 25. 6) speaks of the name as 
affected especially by the Carpocra- 
tians. For the use of the substantive 
yvwa^is see i Cor. viii. i, xiii. 2, 8, i Tim. 
vi 20, and the note on Col. ii. 3 : comp. 
Eev. ii. 24 olVifes ovk ^yvcoaav to. ^adicx. 
Tov Saram, ws Xiyovaiv (as explained 
by the passage already quoted from 
BQppol. Hcer. v. 6 ; see Galatians, 
p. 309, note 3). 



The three 
sects of 
the Jews. 

ism, pure- 
ly nega- 

ism and 

features of 

set. If this should prove to be the case, then we have a 
combination which prepares the way for the otherwise strange 
phenomena presented in the Epistle to the Colossians. 

Those, who have sought analogies to the three Jewish sects 
among the philosophical schools of Greece and Rome, have com- 
pared the Sadducees to the Epicureans, the Pharisees to the 
Stoics, and the Essenes to the Pythagoreans. Like all historical 
parallels, this comparison is open to misapprehension : but, 
carefully guarded, the illustration is pertinent and instructive. 

With the Sadducees we have no concern here. Whatever 
respect may be due to their attitude in the earKer stages of 
their history, at the Christian era at least they have ceased to 
deserve our sympathy; for their position has become mainly 
negative. They take their stand on denials — the denial of the 
existence of angels, the denial of the resurrection of the dead, 
the denial of a progressive development in the Jewish Church. 
In these negative tendencies, in the materialistic teaching of the 
sect, and in the moral consequences to which it led, a very 
rough resemblance to the Epicureans will appear^. 

The two positive sects were the Pharisees and the Essenes. 
Both alike were strict observers of the ritual law ; but, while 
the Pharisee was essentially practical, the tendency of the 
Essene was to mysticism; while the Pharisee was a man of 
the world, the Essene was a member of a brotherhood. In this 
respect the Stoic and the Pythagorean were the nearest counter- 
parts which the history of Greek philosophy and social life could 
offer. These analogies indeed are suggested by Josephus himself^ 

While the portrait of the Pharisee is distinctly traced and 
easily recognised, this is not the case with the Essene. The 
Essene is the great enigma of Hebrew history. Admired alike 
by Jew, by Heathen, and by Christian, he yet remains a dim 
vague outline, on which the highest subtlety of successive 

1 The name Epicureans seems to 
he applied to them even in the Talmud ; 
see Eisenmenger's Entdecktes Juden- 
tlium I. pp. 95, 694 sq.; comp. Keim 
Geschichte Jesu von Nazara i. p. 281. 

2 For the Pharisees see Vit. 1 irapa- 
TrXT^crtoj icFTL TTj Trap' "EWi/fft SrwiVg 
\eyofx&-Q: for the Essenes, Ant. xv. 10. 
4 dialTTi xpiiifievov rr) trap' "EWrjaiv vird 
llvdaydpov KaTaSedeiyfi^yy. 


critics lias been employed to supply a substantial form and an 
adequate colouring. An ascetic mystical dreamy recluse, he 
seems too far removed from the hard experience of life to be 
capable of realisation. 

And yet by careful use of the existing materials the A suffici- 
portrait of this sect may be so far restored, as to establish with tinct por- 
a reasonable amount of probability the point with which alone t^^^ggct 
we are here concerned. It will appear from the delineations attainable. 
of ancient writers, more especially of Philo and Josephus, that 
the characteristic feature of Essenism was a particular direction 
of mystic speculation, involving a rigid asceticism as its prac- 
tical consequence. Following the definition of Gnosticism 
which has been already given, we may not unfitly call this 
tendency Gnostic. 

Having in this statement anticipated the results, I shall Main fea- 
now endeavour to develope the main features of Essenism ; Essenism. 
and, while doing so, I will ask my readers to bear in mind 
the portrait of the Colossian heresy in St Paul, and to mark 
the resemblances, as the enquiry proceeds\ 

The Judaic element is especially prominent in the life and 
teaching of the sect. The Essene was exceptionally rigorous 
in his observance of the Mosaic ritual. In his strict abstinence 

^ The really important contempo- count, we may conjecture, was taken 

rary sources of information respecting fi-om Alexander Polyhistor, a contem- 

the Essenes are Josephus, Bell. Jud. porary of Sulla, whom he mentions 

ii. 8. 2 — 13, Ant. xiii. 5. 9, xvtii. i. 5, in his prefatory elenchus as one of 

Vit. 2 (with notices of individual Es- his authorities for this 5th book, and 

senes Bell. Jud. i. 3. 5, ii. 7. 3, ii. 20. 4, who wrote a work On the Jews (Clem, 

iii. 2. I, Ant. -^]ii. 11. 2, xv. 10.4,5); Alex. Strom. 1. 21, p. 396, Euseb. 

and Philo, Quod omnis prohus liber Prcep. Ev. ix. 17). Significant men- 

§i2sq. (11. p. ^i,'j sq_.), Apol. pro Jud. tion of the Essenes is found also 

(11. p. 632 sq., a fragment quoted by in the Christian Hegesippus (Euseb. 

Eusebius Pr<ep. Evang. viii. 11). Tlie H. E. iv. 22) and in the heathen Dion 

account of the Therapeutes by the Chrtsostom (Synesius Dion 3, p. 39). 

latter writer, de Vita Contemplativa Epiphanius (Hcsr, pp. 28 sq., 40 sq.) 

(11. p. 471 sq.), must also be consulted, discusses two separate sects, which he 

as describing a closely allied sect. To calls Essenes and Ossceans respectively, 

these should be added the short notice These are doubtless different names of 

of Flint, N. H. v. 15. 17, as expressing the same persons. His account is, as 

the views of a Eoman writer. His ac- usual, confused and inaccurate, but 

COL. 6 



Observ- from work on the sabbath he far surpassed all the other Jews. 

MoTaic ^^ -^^ would not light a fire, would not move a vessel, would not 

law. perform even the most ordinary functions of life\ The whole 

day was given up to religious exercises and to exposition of the 

has a certain value. All other autho- 
rities are secondary. HippoLYTUs, iftcr. 
is. 1 8 — 28, follows Josephus (Bell. Jud. 
ii. 8. 2 sq.) almost esclusively. Pok- 
PHTRY also [de Abstinentia, iv. 11 sq.) 
copies this same passage of Josephus, 
with a few unimportant exceptions 
probably taken fjom a lost work by 
the same author, irpbi to^s "EWrjvas, 
which he mentions by name. Euse- 
Eius {Prcep. Evang. viii. 11 sq. , ix. 3) 
contents himself with quoting PhUo 
and Porphyry. Solinus {Polyh. xxxv. 
9 sq.) merely abstracts Pliny. Tal- 
MUDicAL and eabbinical passages, sup- 
posed to refer to the Essenes, are col- 
lected by Frankel (see below) ; but the 
allusions are most uncertain (see 
below, p. 362 sq.). On the authorities 
for the history of the Essenes see W. 
Clemens in Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. 
1869, p. 328 sq. 

The attack on the genuineness of 
the De Vit. Cont. by Griitz (in. p. 
463 sq.) has been met by Zeller {Philos. 
lu. ii. p. 255 sq.), whose refutation is 
complete. Yet Lucius, Hilgenfeld, and 
Schiirer reject it as spimous. The at- 
tack of Griitz (in. p. 464) on the Quod 
omnis probus liber Zeller considers too 
frivolous to need refuting {ib. p. 235). 
A refutation will be found in Clemens 
(I.e. p. 340 sq.). 

Of modern writings relating to the 
Essenes the following may be espe- 
cially mentioned; Bellermann Ueber 
Essder u. Tlierapeuten, Berlin 1821; 
Gfrorek Philo II. p. 299 sq.; Dauxe 
Ersch u. Grubefs Encyklopddie s.v. ; 
Frankel Zeitschrift filr die religiosen 
Interessen des Judenthums 1846 p. 441 
sq., Monatsschrift filr Geschichte u. 
Wissenschaft des Judenthums 1853, 

p. 30sq., 61 sq. ; Bottger TJeber den 
Orden der Essder, Dresden 1849 ; 
EwALD Geschichte des Voltes Israel rv. 
p. 420 sq., VII. p. 153 sq.; Eitschl 
Entsiehung der Althatholischen Kirche 
p. 179 sq. (ed. 2, 1857), and Theolo- 
gische Jahrbiicher 1855, p. 315 sq. ; 
JosT Geschichte des Judenthums i. p. 
207 sq.; Graetz Geschichte der Juden 
III. p. 79 sq., 463 sq. (ed. 2, 1863); 
Hilgenfeld Jiidische Apocalyptik p. 
245 sq., and Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. 
X. p. 97 sq., XI. p. 343 sq., xiv. p. 
30 sq. ; Westcott Smith's Dictionary 
of the Bible s. v.; Ginsburg The 
Essenes, London 1864, and in Kitto's 
Cyclopcedia s. v. ; Derenbourg L'His- 
toire et la Geographie de la Palestine 
p. 166 sq., 460 sq. ; Keiai Geschichte 
Jesu von Nazara 1. p. 282 sq. ; Haus- 
rath Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte 
!• P- 133 sq. ; Lipsics SchenkeVs Bibel 
Lexikon s. v. ; Herzfeld Geschichte 
des Volkes Israel 11. 368 sq., 388 sq., 
509 sq. (ed. 2, 1863); Zeller Philo- 
sophie der Griechen iii. ii. p. 234 sq. 
(ed. 2, 1868); Laxgen Judcntlium in 
Paldstina p. 190 sq. ; Lowr Kritisch- 
talmudisches Lexicon s.v. ; Weiss Zur 
Geschichte der jiidiscJien Tradition p. 
120 sq.; Lucius Essenismus etc. (1881); 
Hilgenfeld Ketzergeschichte p. 87 sq. 
(1884); ScHtJRER Gesch.d. Jiid. Volkes 
II. p. 467 sq. (ed. 2, 18S6), 

^ B. J. ii. 8. 9 (f)v\d.acroi>Tai . . . raij 
epSofiaffiv epy(j3v e(pdirT€<7dai, SiacpopdiraTa 
'lovdaidjv airavTuV ov fwvop yap Tpo<pai 
eavTois irpb Tj/xepas fiias napacTKevd^ovcnv, 
u)J fji.T]Si irvp epavoiev kKilvrj ry rj/x^pg., dXX' 
ovd^ (TKevos Ti fieTaKivTJaai Bappovaiv k.t.\. 
Hippolytus (Hcer. ix. 25) adds that some 
of them do not so much as leave their 
beds on this d.iy. 


Scriptures \ His respect for the law extended also to the law- 
giver. After God, the name of Moses was held in the highest 
reverence. He who blasphemed his name was punished with 
death"''. In all these points the Essene was an exaggeration, 
almost a caricature, of the Pharisee. 

So far the Essene has not departed from the principles of External 
normal Judaism ; but here the divergence begins. In three super- 
main points we trace the working of influences which must ^'i*^^*^- 
have been derived from external sources. 

I. To the legalism of the Pharisee, the Essene added an i. Eigid 
asceticism, which was peculiarly his own, and which in many j^ respect 
respects contradicted the tenets of the other sect. The honour- ^° 
able, and even exaggerated, estimate of marriage, which was 
characteristic of the Jew, and of the Pharisee as the typical Jew, 
found no favour with the Essene^ Marriage was to him an marriage, 
abomination. Those Essenes who lived together as members of 
an order, and in whom the principles of the sect were carried to 
their logical consequences, eschewed it altogether. To secure 
the continuance of their brotherhood they adopted children, 
whom they brought up in the doctrines and practices of the 
community. There were others however who took a different 
view. They accepted marriage, as necessary for the preservation 
of the race. Yet even with them it seems to have been regard- 
ed only as an inevitable evil. They fenced it off by stringent 
rules, demanding a three years' probation and enjoining various 

1 Philo Quod omn. prob. lib. % 12. iyKpareLav' 'Euffaiuv yap oiioels dyerai 

Of the Therapeutes see Philo Vit. Cont. ywaiKa, 5i6ti <pi\avTov ij ywrj Kal fijXo- 

§ 3, 4. Twov oi fxerpius Kal deivbv dv8pbs rjdr] 

* B. J. 1. c. § 9 <7^/3as 5^ (liyKXTov irapaaaXevaai, with more to the same 
trap avTois fiera top Qeof to oPo/j.a tou purpose. This peculiarity astonished 
vofJLod^Tov, Kav ^\a(T<pii)ix-f](Tyj TLs els tovtov the heathen Phuy, N. H. V. 15, 'gens 
(i.e. Tbv vofiodirriv), KoXd^eaduL davcLTo:: sola et in toto orbe prater ceteros mira, 
comp. § 10. sine ulla femina, venere abdicata . . . 

* B. J. 1. c. § 2 yap.ov p-iv vwepoxf/la In diem ex SBquo convenarum turba 
Trap avToh . . . rds twv ywaiK^v dcreX- renascitur large frequentantibus . . . 
yeia% (pv\affa6/j.evoi kuI p^ijdepiiap T-qpetv Ita per ssBCulorum millia (incredibile 
ireweicrp.^i'oi ttji' npbs eva Tricrrii', Ant. dictu) gens SBterna est, in qua nemo 
xviii. I. 5; PhUo Fragm. p. 633 7(x/^o;' nascitur. Tarn foecunda iUis ahorum 
vaprjTrjcravTO /uerd tov diacpepovroi^ duKeiv vitse pcenitentia est.' 



purificatory rites\ The conception of marriage, as quickening 
and educating the affections and thus exalting and refining 
human Hfe, was wholly foreign to their minds. Woman was 
a mere instrument of temptation in their eyes, deceitful, 
faithless, selfish, jealous, misled and misleading by her passions, 
meats and But their ascetic tendencies did not stop here. The 
irm-3 Pharisee was very careful to observe the distinction of meats 
lawful and unlawful, as laid do^vn by the Mosaic code, and even 
rendered these ordinances vexatious by minute definitions of 
his own. But the Essene went far beyond him. He drank 
no wine, he did not touch animal food. His meal consisted of 
a piece of bread and a single mess of vegetables. Even this 
simple fare was prepared for him by special officers consecrated 
for the purpose, that it might be free from all contamination^ 
!Nay, so stringent were the rules of the order on this point, 
that when an Essene was excommunicated, he often died of 
starvation, being bound by his oath not to take food prepared 
by defiled hands, and thus being reduced to eat the very grass 
of the field', 
and oil for Again, in hot climates oil for anointing the body is almost 
°' a necessary of life. From this too the Essenes strictly ab- 
stained. Even if they were accidentally smeared, they were 
careful at once to wash themselves, holding the mere touch to 
be a contamination*. 

^ B. J. 1. C. § 13. Joseplius speaks evrekrj' Koi oij/ov aXes, ovs oi A^poSiairo- 

of these as 'irepov 'EcrjTjvuv rdyfia, o di- raroi irapaprvovo'iv v<T<Tuir(fi' irordv liduip 

aurav fxkv koL ?6r] Kal vd/JLifia rots aXXots va/xaTialop avroh icrriv ; and again more 

bu.o(j>povovv, Suarbs 5^ t^ (card ydfiov So^v- to the same effect in § 9 : and compare 

"We may suppose that they correspond- the Essene story of St James in Hege- 

ed to the thii-d order of a Benedictine sippns (Euseh. H. E. ii 23) oTvov Kal 

or Franciscan brotherhood; so that, crlKepa o\ik Ittlcv, oiJS^ ^fi\{/vxov ^<paye. 

living in the world, they would observe Their abstention from animal food 

the rule up to a certain point, but accounts for Porphyry's giving them 

would not be bound by vows of cehbacy so prominent a place in his treatise : 

or subject to the more rigorous dis- see Zeller, p. 243. 

cipline of the sect. ^ B. J. 1. c. § 8. 

2 P. J. 1. c. § 5 ; see Philo's account * B. J. 1. c. § 3 KijXida 5^ viroXafipd- 

of the Therapeutes, Vit. Cont. § 4 <ti- vovtri rb fKaiov k.t.X.; Hegesippus I.e. 

Tovvrai. di iroXureX^i oiiS^y, dWd dprov iXaiov oiiK ■qXei\f/aTO. 


From these facts it seems clear that Essene abstinence was Underly- _ 
something more than the mere exaggeration of Pharisaic prin- pie of this 
ciples. The rigour of the Pharisee was based on his obligation of asceticism, 
obedience to an absolute external law. The Essene introduced 
a new principle. He condemned in any form the gratification 
of the natural cravings, nor would he consent to regard it as 
moral or immoral only according to the motive which suggested 
it or the consequences which flowed from it. It was in 
itself an absolute evil. He sought to disengage himself, as far 
as possible, from the conditions of physical life. In short, in 
the asceticism of the Essene we seem to see the germ of that 
Gnostic dualism which regards matter as the principle, or at 
least the abode, of evil. 

2. And, when we come to investigate the speculative tenets 2. Specu- 
of the sect, we shall find that the Essenes have diverged nets, 
appreciably from the common type of Jewish orthodoxy. 

(i) Attention was directed above to their respect for (i) Tend- 
Moses and the Mosaic law, which they shared in common with sun-wor- 
the Pharisee. But there was another side to their theological ^ i'* 
teaching. Though our information is somewhat defective, still 
in the scanty notices which are preserved we find sufficient 
indications that they had absorbed some foreign elements of 
religious thought into their system. Thus at day-break they 
addressed certain prayers, which had been handed down from 
their forefathers, to the Sun, 'as if entreating him to rise\' 
They were careful also to conceal and bury all polluting sub- 
stances, so as not ' to insult the rays of the god^.' We can- 

1 B. J. 1. c. § 5 Trpos ye /jltju to Oelov Josephus states to be offered to the sun 

Z5/ws evae^ds- wplv yap dpaa-xdv tov ■^Xiov {els avrov), into the ordinary prayers of 

ovSiv (f>diyyovTai twp ^e^T)\iov, irarplovs the Pharisaic Jew at day-break, see the 

5^ Tivas els avrbv e^xas, dairep heTevovTes second dissertation on the Essenes. 

dvaretXai. Compare what PhUo says 2 £_ j, 1. c. § 9 ws fir] ras avyas v§pl- 

of the Therapeutes, Vit. Cont. § 3 ^ouv tov 6eov. There can be no doubt, 

■rfKiov jxkv dvlcrxoi'Tos evrj/iepiav alro^i/xevoi I think, that by tov Geov is meant the 

Trjv Scrws evyj/uLepiav, (pwros ovpavlov ttjv ' sun-god ' ; comp. Eur. Heracl. 749 

SLavoiai' avTwi'di'aTr\7]ad^uai,BXLdib.% II. Oeov (paealix^poToi avyal, Ale. 722 to 

On the attempt of Frankel {Zeitschr. (^^770$ toCto tov Oeov, Appian Pr<sf. 9 

p. 458) to resolve this worship, which dvofiii/ov tov deov, Lib. 113 tou Oeov 


not indeed suppose that they regarded the sun as more than a 
symbol of the unseen power who gives light and life ; but their 
outward demonstrations of reverence were sufficiently promi- 
nent to attach to them, or to a sect derived from them, the 
epithet of 'Sun- worshippers',' ^nd some connexion with the 
characteristic feature of Parsee devotion at once suggests itself. 
The practice at all events stands in strong contrast to the 
denunciations of worship paid to the 'hosts of heaven' in the 
Hebrew prophets, 
(ii) Eesur- (ii) Nor again is it an insignificant fact that, while the 
the body Pli^risee maintained the resurrection of the body as a cardinal 
denied. article of his faith, the Essene restricted himself to a belief in 
the immortality of the soul. The soul, he maintained, was con- 
fined in the flesh, as in a prison-house. Only when disengaged 
from these fetters would it be truly free. Then it would 
soar aloft, rejoicing in its newly attained liberty ^ This 
doctrine accords with the fundamental conception of the 
malignity of matter. To those who held this conception a 

irepl SetXrjv effirepav opros. Civ. iv. 79 other were. See below, p. 372. 

SvvovTos dpri ToO 6eou: comp. Herod, ii. ^ B. J". 1. c. § 11 Kal yap Ippuirai Trap' 

24. Dr Ginsburg has obliterated this avrois rjde 17 56|a, (pdaprd, ixh erwi t4 

very important touch by translating ras ffw/xara Kal Tr]i> vXijv ov ^lovi/xoy avrois, 

avyaSTov Oeov'the Divine rajs' {Essenes rds 5^ ^f/vxas ddavdrovs del Siap-dveiv . . . 

p. 47). It is a significant fact that eTreLSav 5^ dveduicrL twv Kara crdpKa Secr- 

Hippolytus {Har. ix. o.-,) omits the fi'Sv, ola d^ fiaKpoLs SovXelas din]\\ay- 

wordsrou^eoC, evidently regardingthem p-evas, rdre x«^pf"' k<i' p-erewpovs (p^peff- 

as a stumbling-block. How Josephus Oat k.t.X. To this doctrine the teach- 

expressed himself in the original He- ing of the Pharisees stands in direct 

brew of the Bellum Judaicum, it is contrast; ib. § 13: comp. also Ant. 

vain to speculate: but the Greek trans- xviii. i. 3, 5. 

lation was authorised, if not made, by Nothing can be more explicit than 

him. the language of Josephus. On the other 

^ Epiphan. U<tr. xix. 2, xx. 3 'Ocr- hand Hippolytus {Har. ix. 27) says of 

(rrjvol S^ p.eT^(XTrj(xav dirb 'loi/Sat'cr/uou els them 6p,o\oyovcrt. yap Kal ttjv crdpKa 

Trjv Tcov Hap-^paicop a'ipeciv, lili. I, 2 Hap,- dvaarriijeadai Kal Saeadat dddvarov ov 

ipaloi, ycLp ipp.i]vevovTai 'HXiaKoi, from rpbirov -qBi) dddvaros iarw -q ipvxri k.t.\.; 

the Hebrew L"CtJ' 'the sun.' The but his authority is worthless on this 

historical connexion of the Sampsasans point, as he can have had no personal 

with the Essenes is evident from these knowledge of the facts : see Zeller p. 

passages: though it is difficult to say 251, note 2. Hilgenfeld takes a dif- 

what their precise relations to each ferent view; Zeitschr. xiv. p. 49. 


resurrection of the body would be repulsive, as involving a 
perpetuation of evil. 

(iii) But they also separated themselves from the religious (iii) Pro- 
belief of the orthodox Jew in another respect, which would sacrifices? 
provoke more notice. While they sent gifts to the temple 
at Jerusalem, they refused to offer sacrifices there \ It would 
appear that the slaughter of animals was altogether forbidden 
by their creed ^ It is certain that they were afraid of con- 
tracting some ceremonial impurity by offering victims in the 
temple. Meanwhile they had sacrifices, bloodless sacrifices, of 
their own. They regarded their simple meals with their 
accompanying prayers and thanksgiving, not only as devotional 
but even as sacrificial rites. Those who prepared and presided 
over these meals were their consecrated priests ^ 

(iv) In what other respects they may have departed from, (iv) Eso- 
or added to, the normal creed of Judaism, we do not know, trine of 
But it is expressly stated that, when a novice after passing ^°8els. 
through the probationary stages was admitted to the full privi- 
leges of the order, the oath of admission bound him ' to conceal 
nothing from the members of the sect, and to report nothing 
concerning them to others, even though threatened with death ; 
not to communicate any of their doctrines to anyone otherwise 
than as he himself had received them ; but to abstain from 
robbery, and in like manner to guard carefully the books 

^ Ant. xviii. i. 5 eh S^ rb Upbv ava- from the temple-sacrifices cannot be 

6-qixaTa. re ar^WovTes dvcrias ovk iwire- considered apart from the fact that they 

XoOcrt 5ta<pop6Tr]ri ayveiuiii, as vofd^oiev, ate no animal food: see above p. 86, 

Kol 5t' aiirb elpyb/j-euoi rov koivov re/xevlcr- note 2. (3) The Christianised Es- 

/jLUTos 4(p' avTwv ras dvaias einTekovcn. senes, or Ebionites, though strong 

So Philo Quod omn. prob. lib. % 12 de- Judaizers in many respects, yet dis- 

scribes them as 01) ^ya Karadvovres dXX' tinctly protested against the sacrifice 

hpoirpeireTs' t&s iavTuv diavolas Kara- of animals ; see Clem. Horn. iii. 45, 53, 

aK€v6.i€iv dftouvres. and comp. Eitschl p. 224. On this sub- 

2 The following considerations show ject see also ZeUer p. 242 sq., and my 

that their abstention should probably second dissertation, 
be explained in this way: (i) Though 3 ^^t. xviii. i. 5 lepets re [xet/)o- 

the language of Josephus may be am- tovovcti] 8ia iroirjaLi' airov re Kal ^pcofid- 

biguous, that of Philo is unequivocal tuv, B. J. ii. 8. 5 TrpoKaTevxerai S^ 6 le- 

on this point; (2) Their abstention /5£!)st^s TpogS^s k.t.X.; see Eitschl p. 181. 


of their sect, and the names of the angels *.' It may be reason- 
ably supposed that more Im'ks under this last expression than 
meets the ear. This esoteric doctrine, relating to angelic beings, 
may have been another link which attached Essenism to the 
religion of Zoroaster ^ At all events we seem to be justified 
in connectmg it with the self-imposed service and worshipping 
of angels at Colossse : and we may well suspect that we have 
here a germ which was developed into the Gnostic doctrine of 
aeons or emanations, 
(v) Speeu- (v) If so, it is not unconnected with another notice relating 
God and^ to Essene peculiarities. The Gnostic doctrine of intermediate 
Creation, beings between God and the world, as we have seen, was 
intimately connected with speculations respecting creation. 
Now we are specially informed that the Essenes, while leaving 
physical studies in general to speculative idlers {fierewpo- 
Xeaxci'i''i), as being beyond the reach of human nature, yet 
excepted from their general condemnation tliat philosophy 
which treats of the existence of God and the generation of the 
universe '. 
(vi) Magic- (vi) Mention has been made incidentally of certain secret 
c^ari^s. jjQQjj^g peculiar to the sect. The existence of such an apocryphal 
literature was a sure token of some abnormal development in 
doctrine ^ In the passage quoted it is mentioned in relation to 

1 B. J. 1. c. § 7 SpKovs avTo2s 6/j.vv(n ^ See the second dissertation. 

^piK(Jbd€is.../i-^Te Kpvypeiv ti toi)s alpe- ^ Pliilo Omn. proh. lib. § 12 (p. 458) 

Ticrras p-rire eripois aiiTwv ri HT)vi<reiv, /cai to 5^ (pvaiKbv ws fieti'ov ij Kara avdpuiirl- 

dv p.ixp'- Oavarov Tis ^id^rai. irphs vrjv ipvcriv yiierewpoXe'crxats diro\nr6vTes, 

TovTois 6tJ.v6ovcn /J.r]S€vl jxiv /jLeradodfai irXrji' Scrov aiirov irepl virdp^eus Qeov Kai 

Tuv doy/xdruv iripios ij (as avrbs pari- rrjs tov wavrbs yevicreus (pi\o(ro(peiTai. 
XajSev dipe^ecrOai 0^ Xyareias Kal crwrr]- * The word Apocrypha was used 

prjffeiv bp.olw rd re Tr}s aipiaeus avrwv originally to designate the secret books 

/3i/3X^a Kal id tQiv dyyiXojv dvdpLara. which contained the esoteric doctrine 

With this notice should be compared of a sect. The secondary sense ' spu- 

the Ebionite biapLaprvpla, or protest of rious' was derived from the general 

initiation, prefixed to the Clementine character of these writings, which were 

Homilies, which shows how closely heretical, mostly Gnostic, forgeries, 

the Christian Essenes followed the See the note on diroKpiKpoi below, ii. 3, 

practice of their Jewish predecessors and the discussion in Ignatius and 

in this respect. See Zeller p. 254. Fohjcarp i. p. 337 sq. 



some form of angelology. Elsewhere their skill in prediction, 
for which they were especially famous, is connected with the 
perusal of certain 'sacred books,' which however are not 
described \ But more especially, we are told that the Essenes 
studied with extraordinary diligence the writings of the 
ancients, selecting those especially which could be turned to 
profit for soul and body, and that from these they learnt the 
qualities of roots and the properties of stones^. This expres- 

^ B. J. n. 8. 12 elffl 5^ iv avrois oJ 
Kal Tot fiiWovra irpoyivdbffKeiu \nn.<TXvovv- 
Tai, pipXois lepois koI 8ia(p6pois ayvdais 
Kal Trpo(pr]Tuv aTro(p6eyiMa(jiu ifiTraiooTpi- 
^ovp.evoi' ffirdvLov 5^, dwoTe, ev tois wpo- 
ayopfvffeaiv derToxvo^ovo'iv. Dr Ginsburg 
(p. 49) translates jSijSXots iepais ' the 
sacred Scripture,' and Trpo<prjTQv diro- 
ipdiynaaiv ' the sayings of the prophets '; 
but as the definite articles are wanting, 
the expressions cannot be so rendered, 
nor does there seem to be any refer- 
ence to the Canonical writings. 

We learn from an anecdote in Ant. 
xiii. II. 1, that the teachers of this 
sect communicated the art of predic- 
tion to their disciples by instruction. 
We may therefore conjecture that with 
the Essenes this acquisition was con- 
nected with magic or astrology. At all 
events it is not treated as a direct 

^ B. J. ii. 8. 6 awovdd^ovcfL ok skto- 
TTWX Trepi TO. tCov Tra\ai.Qv <TvyypdfiiJ.aTa, 
ndXiara ra irpbs <h<pi\eiav 4"JXV^ '^"^ '^'^' 
fMaros iKX^yovres' Ivdev aiiTois TrpbsOepa- 
trdav iradtSv pi^ai re dXe^iTTjpioi Kal Xlduv 
IdibTtp-es duepewuvrai. This passage 
might seem at first sight to refer simply 
to the medicinal qualities of vegetable 
and mineral substances ; but a compari- 
son vdth another notice in Josephus in- 
vests it with a different meaning, hi Ant. 
viii. 2, 5 he states that Solomon, having 
received by divine inspiration the art 
of defeating demons for the advantage 
and healing of man (eh ilxpiXnav Kal 

depaireiav to^s dv6punroi.s), composed and 
left behind him charms (eTrySaj) by 
which diseases were allayed, and diverse 
kinds of exorcisms {rpdirovs e^opKwaeuv) 
by which demons were cast out. ' This 
mode of healing,' he adds, ' is very 
powerful even to the present day ' ; and 
he then relates how, as he was credibly 
informed [larbp-qca), one of his coun- 
trymen, Eleazar by name, had healed 
several persons possessed by demons 
in the presence of Vespasian and his 
sons and a number of officers and com- 
mon soldiers. This he did by applying 
to the nose of the possessed his ring, 
which had concealed in it one of the 
roots which Solomon had directed to 
be used, and thus drawing out the 
demon through the nostrils of the 
person smelling it. At the same time 
he adjured the evil spirit not to re- 
turn, ' making mention of Solomon 
and repeating the charms composed 
by him.' On one occasion this E- 
leazar gave ocular proof that the de- 
mon was exorcized ; and thus, adds 
Josephus, tra^rjs ■r] 'EoXo/xuvos KaOiaraTO 
cvvecns Kal ffocpia. On these books re- 
lating to the occult arts and ascribed 
to Solomon see Fabricius Cod. Pseud. 
Vet. Test, l p. 1036 sq., where many 
curious notices are gathered together. 
See especially Origen In Matth.Comm. 
XXXV. § no (ill. p. 910), Pseudo- Just. 
Qucest. 55. 

This interpretation explains all the 
expressions m the passage. The Xldwv 


sion, as illustrated by other notices, points clearly to the study 
of occult sciences, and recalls the alliance with the practice 
of magical arts, which was a distinguishing feature of Gnos- 
ticism, and is condemned by Christian teachers even in the 
heresies of the Apostolic age. 
3. Exclu- 3. But the notice to which I have just alluded suggests 
of Essen- 9- broader affinity with Gnosticism. Not only did the theo- 
^^^' logical speculations of the Essenes take a Gnostic turn, but 

they guarded their peculiar tenets with Gnostic reserve. They 
too had their esoteric doctrine which they looked upon as the 
exclusive possession of the privileged few ; their ' mysteries ' 
which it was a grievous offence to communicate to the un- 
initiated. This doctrine was contained, as we have seen, in an 
apocryphal literature. Their whole organisation was arranged 
so as to prevent the divulgence of its secrets to those without. 
The long period of noviciate, the careful rites of initiation, the 
distinction of the several orders ^ in the communit}^ the solemn 
oaths by which they bound their members, were so many 
safeguards against a betrayal of this precious deposit, which 

IMt7)T£s naturally points to the use of 19 and elsewhere, referring to magical 

charms or amulets, as may be seen e.g. arts, illustrates its use here, 

from the treatise, Damigeron de Lapi- Thus these Essenes were dealers in 

dibus, printed in the Spicil. Solemn, iii. charms, rather than physicians. And 

p. 324 sq. : comp. King Antique Gems yet it is quite possible that along with 

Sect. IV, Gnostics and their Remains. this practice of the occult sciences they 

The reference to 'the books of the an- studied the healing art in its nobler 

dents' thus finds an adequate expla- forms. The works of Alexander of 

nation. On the other hand the only Tralles, an eminent ancient physician, 

expression which seemed to militate constantly recommend the use of such 

against this view, dXe^irripwi pl^ai, is charms, of which some obviously come 

justified by the story in the Antiqui- from a Jewish source and not impro- 

ties; comp. also Clem. Hom. viii. 14. b ably may have been taken from these 

It should be added also that Hippolytus Solomonian books to which Josephus 

(IftEr. ix. 22) paraphrases the language refers. A number of passages from 

of Josephus so as to give it this sense ; this and other writers, specifjdng 

iravv 8i irepiipyws lx<'i"''' ""^P' ^ordva^ charms of various kinds, are given in 

Koi XI60VS, irepiepybrepoi 6vTes irphs Becker and Marquardt Rom. Alterth. 

riti TOijTwv ivepyeias, (pdcTKOi'Tes /XT] fidTTjp iv. p. ii6sq. See also Spencer's note 

ToCra yevovivat. The sense which ire- on Orig. c. Ccls. p. 1 7 sq. 

piepyos {'curiosus') bears in Acts xix. ^ See especially B. J. ii. 8. 7, 10. 



they held to be restricted to the inmost circle of the brother- 

In selecting these details I have not attempted to give a 
finished portrait of Essenism. From this point of view the de- 
lineation would be imperfect and misleading: for I have left out 
of sight the nobler features of the sect, their courageous en- 
durance, their simple piety, their brotherly love. My object was 
solely to call attention to those features which distinguish 
it from the normal type of Judaism, and seem to justify the 
attribution of Gnostic influences. And here it has been seen The three 
that the three characteristics, which were singled out above as ^no V* 

distinctive of Gnosticism, reappear in the Essenes ; though it i^™ ioimA 

. . ' * in the 

has been convenient to consider them in the reversed order. Essenes. 

This Jewish sect exhibits the same exclusiveness in the com- 
munication of its doctrines. Its theological speculations take 
the same direction, dwelling on the mysteries of creation, 
regarding matter as the abode of evil, and postulating certain 
intermediate spiritual agencies as necessary links of communi- 
cation between heaven and earth. And lastly, its speculative 
opinions involve the same ethical conclusions, and lead in 
like manner to a rigid asceticism. If the notices relating to 
these points do not always explain themselves, yet read m 
the light of the heresies of the Apostolic age and in that of 
subsequent Judseo-Gnostic Christianity, their bearing seems to 
be distinct enough ; so that we should not be far wrong, if we 
were to designate Essenism as Gnostic Judaism \ 

But the Essenes of whom historical notices are preserved How 
were inhabitauts of the Holy Land. Their monasteries were ^erf the 

situated on the shores of the Dead Sea. We are told indeed Essenes 

' dispersea? 
that the sect was not confined to any one place, and that 

1 I have said nothing of the Kab- to separate these from later additions 
hala, as a development of Jewish or to assign to them even an approxi- 
thought illustrating the Colossian he- mate date. The Kabbahstic doctrine 
resy : because the books containing however will serve to show to what 
the Kabbalistic speculations are com- extent Judaism may be developed in 
paratively recent, and if they contain the direction of speculative mystic- 
ancient elements, it seems impossible ism. 



Do they 
appeax in 

How the 
term Es- 
sene is to 
be under- 

members of the order were found in great numbers in divers 
cities and villages \ But Judsea in one notice, Palestine and Syria 
in another, are especially named as the localities of the Essene 
settlements ^ Have we any reason to suppose that they were 
represented among the Jews of the Dispersion ? In Egypt 
indeed we find ourselves confronted with a similar ascetic 
sect, the Therapeutes, who may perhaps have had an inde- 
pendent origin, but who nevertheless exhibit substantially the 
same type of Jewish thought and practice^. But the Disper- 
sion of Egypt, it may be argued, was exceptional ; and we might 
expect to find here organisations and developments of Judaism 
hardly less marked and various than in the mother country. 
What ground have we for assuming the existence of this type 
in Asia Minor ? Do we meet with any traces of it in the cities 
of the Lycus, or in proconsular Asia generally, which would 
justify the opinion that it might make its influence felt in the 
Christian communities of that district ? 

Now it has been sho^vn that the colonies of the Jews in 
this neighbourhood were populous and influential * ; and it 
might be argued with great probability that among these 
large numbers Essene Judaism could not be unrepresented. 
But indeed throughout this investigation, when I speak of 
the Judaism in the Colossian Church as Essene, I do not 
assume a precise identity of origin, but only an essential 

^ Philo Fragm. p. 632 olKovai 5i 
TToXXois fiiv v6Xeis tt]s 'lovSalas, TroXXas 
5^ Kilifias, Kul /xeyaXov^ Kal iro\vav0pd}~ 
irovs o/xlXovs, Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 4 fila 
di ovK laTLv avTw iroXis, aXX' iv iKaffrji 
KuroLKovai ttoWoI. On the notices of 
the settlements and dispersion of the 
Essenes see Zeller p. 239. 

2 Pliilo names Jiidcea in Fragm. p. 
632 ; Palestine and Syria in Quod omn. 
prob. lib. 12, p. 457. Their chief set- 
tlements were in the neighbourhood 
of the Dead Sea. This fact is men- 
tioned by the heathen vrriters Pliny 
{N. H. V. 15) and Dion Chrysostom 
(Synesius Dio 3). The name of the 

'Essene gate' at Jerusalem (B. J. v. 
4. 2) seems to point to some estabhsh- 
ment of the order close to the walls of 
that city. 

3 They are only known to us from 
Philo's treatise de Vita Contanplativa. 
Their settlements were on the shores 
of the Mareotic lake near Alexandria. 
Unlike the Essenes, they were not 
gathered together in convents as mem- 
bers of a fraternity, but Lived apart as 
anchorites, though in the same neigh- 
bourhood. In other respects their 
tenets and practices were very similar 
to those of the Essenes. 

* See above p. 19 sq. 


affinity of type, with the Essenes of the mother country. As 
a matter of history, it may or may not have sprung from the 
colonies on the shores of the Dead Sea ; but as this can neither 
be proved nor disproved, so also it is immaterial to my main 
purpose. All along its frontier, wherever Judaism became Probabili- 
enamoured of and was wedded to Oriental mysticism, the case. 
same union would produce substantially the same results. 
In a country where Phrygia, Persia, Syria, all in turn had 
moulded religious thought, it would be strange indeed if 
Judaism entirely escaped these influences. Nor, as a matter of 
fact, are indications wanting to show that it was not unaffected 
by them. If the traces are few, they are at least as numerous Direct 


and as clear as with our defective information on the whole tions. 
subject we have any right to expect in this particular instance. 

When St Paul visits Ephesus, he comes in contact with St Paul at 
certain strolling Jews, exorcists, who attempt to cast out evil ^ d. ^4— 
spirits \ Connecting this fact with the notices of Josephus, from 57- 
which we infer that exorcisms of this kind were especially Exorcisms 
practised by the Essenes^, we seem to have an indication of 
their presence in the capital of proconsular Asia. If so, it is 
a significant fact that in their exorcisms they employed the 
name of our Lord : for then we must regard this as the earliest 
notice of those overtures of alliance on the part of Essenism, 
which involved such important consequences in the subse- 
quent history of the Church ^ It is also worth observing, 
that the next incident in St Luke's narrative is the burn- 
ing of their magical books by those whom St Paul converted magical 

. . . . books. 

on this occasion*. As Jews are especially mentioned among 

these converts, and as books of charms are ascribed to the 

Essenes by Josephus, the two incidents, standing in this close 

^ Acts xix. 13 Tuv wepupxofiivwv in this passage : see Wetstein ad loc, 

'louSafcoz/ i^opKicTTwv. and the references in Becker and Mar- 

2 See above, p. 89, note 2. quardt Eom. Altertli. rv. p. 123 sq. 

3 On the latter contact of Essenism But this supposition does not exclude 
with Christianity, see the third disser- the Jews from a share in these magical 
tatiou, and Galatians p. 322 sq. arts, while the context points to some 

4 There is doubtless a reference to such participation, 
the charms called ^Ecpicria ypdnuara 



A.D. 80. 

connexion, throw great light on the type of Judaism which 
thus appears at Ephesus\ 

Somewhat later we have another notice which bears in 
the same direction. The Sibylline Oracle, which forms the 
fourth book in the existing collection, is discovered by internal 
evidence to have been written about A.D. 80 '. It is plainly 
a product of Judaism, but its Judaism does not belong to 
the normal Pharisaic type. With Essenism it rejects sacri- 
fices, even regarding the shedding of blood as a pollution ^ 
and with Essenism also it inculcates the duty of frequent 
washings *. Yet from other indications we are led to the con- 
elusion, that this poem was not written in the interests of 
Essenism properly so called, but represents some allied though 

^ I can only regard it as an accidental 
coincidence that the epulones of the 
Ephesian Artemis were called Essenes, 
Pausan. viii. 13. i rovs ry 'Afrr^/j-iSi 
IffTidropas rj 'E^ccTict yivo/j.ivovs, koXov- 
fxivovs 5^ virb tQv ttoXitw;' 'Ecrtr^vaj: see 
Gulil Epheaiaca io6 sq. The Etymol. 
Magn. has 'Ectcttji'' b^aaiXevs Kara ^E(pe- 
fflovs, and adds several absurd deriva- 
tions of the word. In the sense of 'a 
king' it is used by Callimachus Hymn. 
Jov. 66 01! (7e deuif eacTjva irdXiv Oiuav. It 
is probably not a Greek word, as other 
terms connected with the worship of 
the Ephesian Artemis (e.g. fieyd^v^os, 
a Persian word) point to an oriental 
or at least a non-Greek origin; and 
some have derived it trom the Ai-a- 
maic pon chasin 'strong' or 'power- 
ful.' But there is no sufficient ground 
for connecting it directly with the 
name of the sect ''Eaa-rivol or 'Ecrcraioi, 
as some writers are disposed to do 
(e.g. Spanheim on Callim. 1. c, Creuzer 
SymboUk iv. pp. 347, 349) ; though 
this view is favoured by the fact that 
certain ascetic practices were enjoined 
on these pagan 'Essenes.' 

3 Its date is fixed by the following 
allusions. Tlie temple at Jerusalem 

has been destroyed by Titus (w. 122 
sq.), and the cities of Campania have 
been overwhelmed in fire and ashes 
(w. 127 sq.). Nero has disappeared 
and his disappearance has been fol- 
lowed by bloody contests in Kome (w. 
116 sq.); but his return is still ex- 
pected (w. 134 sq.). 

3 See W. 27 — 30 ot vrjovs fxkv airavras 
dTToaTpixpovcnv tSoires, Kal /3w/Ltoi)s, dKoia 
\i6(i}u idpu/JLara KwcpQv a'ifio^atv e/ui/'i'Xw;' 
fiifuacrfiiva Kal OvairjiTL Terpairbduv k.t.X. 
In an earlier passage w. 8 sq. it is 
said of God, oUre yap oXkov ?x" "<*$' 
\ldov l^pvdivra KdxpdraTov vui^bv re, 
^poT(3i> iroKvaXyia Xui^ijv. 

* ver. 160 iv TTOTafMois XoiKxacrde SXov 
Sinas devdoiai. Another point of con- 
tact with the Essenes is the gi-eat 
stress on prayers before meals, ver. 26 
evXoyiovres irplv irUiLv (pay ieiv re. Ewald 
{Sibyll. Biicher p. 46) points also to 
the prominence of the words evcje^eiv, 
evje^r/s, evcre^la (w. 26, 35, 42, 45, 
133. 148. 151. 162, 165, 181, 183) to 
designate the elect of God, as tending 
in the same direction. The force of 
this latter argument will depend mainly 
on the derivation which is given to the 
name Essene. See below, p. 347 sq. 


independent development of Judaism. In some respects at 
all events its language seems quite inconsistent with the purer 
type of Essenism'. But its general tendency is clear : and 
of its locality there can hardly be a doubt. The affairs of 
Asia Minor occupy a disproportionate space in the poet's de- 
scription of the past and vision of the future. The cities of 
the Maeander and its neighbourhood, among these Laodicea, 
are mentioned with emphasis^ 

And certainly the moral and intellectual atmosphere would Phrygia 
not be unfavourable to the growth of such a plant. The same congenial 
district, which in speculative philosophy had produced a Thales ^J^ ^^^^ 
and a Heraclitus^ had developed in popular religion the wor- religion. 
ship of the Phrygian Cybele and Sabazius and of the Ephe- 
sian Artemis*. Cosmological speculation, mystic theosophy, 
religious fanaticism, all had their home here. Associated with 
•Judaism or with Christianity the natural temperament and the 
intellectual bias of the people would take a new direction ; 

i Thus for instance, Ewaid (1. c, p. 
47) points to the tacit approval of mar- 
riage in ver. 33. I hardly think however 
that this passage, which merely con- 
demns adultery, can be taken to imply 
so much. More irreconcilable with pure 
Eseenism is the belief in the resur- 
rection of the body and the future life 
on earth, which is maintained in vv. 
1768(1.; though Hilgenfeld [Zeitschr. 
XIV. p. 49) does not recognise the diffi- 
culty. See above p. 88. This Sibyl- 
line writer was perhaps rather a He- 
merobaptist than an Essene. On the 
relation of the Hemerobaptists and 
Essenes see the third dissertation. 
Alexandre, Orac. Sihyll. (ii. p. 323), 
says of this Sibylline Oracle, 'Ipse 
liber baud dubie Clu-istianus est,' but 
there is nothing distinctly Christian 
in its teaching. 

" TV. 106 sq., 145 sq.; see above p. 40, 
note 2. It begins KXvdi Xews 'Acrlrjs /xe- 
yaXavx^os Ei)/3a!7rr)s re. 

^ The exceptional activity of the 

forces of nature in these districts of 
Asia Minor may have dkected the 
speculations of the Ionic school towards 
physics, and more especially towards 
cosmogony. In Heraclitus there is 
also a strong mystical element. But 
besides such broader affinities, I ven- 
ture to call attention to special dicta of 
the two philosophers mentioned in the 
text, which curiously recall the tenets 
of the JudaBo-Gnostic teachers. Thales 
declared (Diog. Laert. i. 27) rbv Kbanov 
^fxtpvxof Kal Sai.)j.6vwu TrKrjpr), or, as re- 
ported by Aristotle {de An. i. 5, p. 411), 
iravra irX-qpi) diCiv €lvai. In a recorded 
saying of HeracUtus we have the very 
language of a Gnostic teacher ; Clem. 
Alex. Strom, v. 13, p. 699, rd. fj.iv ttjs 
yvufftoi ^ddy] Kptitrreiu awKTTlt] 
ayadrj, Kad' 'HpaKKeiTof aTnarly} ya/i 
SM(pvyydi'eL t6 p.r] yivwaKeadai.. See 
above pp. 75, 90. 

* For the characteristic features of 
Phrygian religious worship see Steigei- 
Kolosser p. 70 aq. 



but the old type would not be altogether obliterated. Phrygia 
reared the hybrid monstrosities of Ophitism\ She was the 
mother of Montanist enthusiasm^, and the foster-mother of 
Novatian rigorism^ The syncretist, the mystic, the devotee, 
the puritan, would find a congenial climate in these regions 
of Asia Minor. 


Is the 
Gnostic ? 

notes of 

I. Intel- 


It has thus been shown first, that Essene Judaism was 
Gnostic in its character ; and secondly, that this type of Jewish 
thought and practice had established itself in the Apostolic age 
in those parts of Asia Minor with which we are more directly 
concerned. It now remains to examine the heresy of the 
Colossian Church more nearly, and to see whether it deserves 
the name, which provisionally was given to it, of Gnostic 
Judaism. Its Judaism all will alloAV. Its claim to be regarded 
as Gnostic will require a closer scrutiny. And in conducting 
this examination, it will be convenient to take the three notes 
of Gnosticism which have been already laid down, and to enquire 
how far it satisfies these tests. 

I. It has been pointed out that Gnosticism strove to esta- 
blish, or rather to preserve, an intellectual oligarchy in religion. 
It had its hidden wisdom, its exclusive mysteries, its privileged 

Now I think it will be evident, that St Paul in this epistle 

1 The prominence, which the Phry- 
gian mysteries and Phrygian rites held 
in the syncretism of the Ophites, is 
clear from the account of Hippolytus 
Har. V. 7 sq. Indeed Phrygia appears 
to have been the proper home of Ophi- 
tism. Yet the admixtm-e of Judaic 
elements is not less obvious, as the 
name Naassene, derived from the He- 
brew word for a serpent, shows. 

2 The name, by which the Mon- 
tanists were commonly known in the 
early ages, was the sect of the ' Phry- 
gians '; Clem. Strom, vii. 17, p. 900 al 
di [rtSi' aipiaeuv] dirb ^Ovovs [irpoffayo- 
pei^oi'Toi], ois T) rCiv ^pvyG>v (comp. Eus. 

H. E. iv. 27, V. 16, Hipp. Hcer. vui. 
19, s. 25). From oi (or 17) Kara ^pvyds 
(Eus. H. E. ii. 25, V. 16, 18, vi. 20) 
comes the solcEcistic Latin name Cata- 

3 Socrates (iv. 2 8) accounts for the 
spread of Novatianism in Phrygia by 
the cuKppoffivf) of the Phrygian temper. 
If so, it is a striking testimony to the 
power of Christianity, that under its 
influence the religious enthusiasm of 
the Phrygians should have taken this 
direction, and that they should have 
exchanged the fanatical orgiasm of 
their heathen worship for the rigid 
puritanism of the Novatianist. 


feels himself challenged to contend for the universality of the st Paul 

Gospel. This indeed is a characteristic feature of the Apostle's \q^^q ^ 

teaching at all times, and holds an equally prominent place in universal- 

the epistles of an earlier date. But the point to be observed is, Gospel, 

that the Apostle, in maintaining this doctrine, has changed the 

mode of his defence ; and this fact suggests that there has been 

a change in the direction of the attack. It is no longer against 

national exclusiveness, but against intellectual exclusiveness, 

that he contends. His adversaries do not now plead ceremonial 

restrictions, or at least do not plead these alone : but they erect 

an artificial barrier of spiritual privilege, even more fatal to 

the universal claims of the Gospel, because more specious and 

more insidious. It is not now against the Jew as such, but 

against the Jew become Gnostic, that he fights the battle of 

liberty. In other words ; it is not against Christian Pharisaism 

but against Christian Essenism that he defends his position. 

Only in the light of such an antagonism can we understand the 

emphatic iteration with which he claims to ' warn every man 

and teach every man in evei^y wisdom, that he may present 

every man perfect in Christ Jesus \' It will be remembered against 

that 'wisdom' in Gnostic teaching was the exclusive possession of ^.g^tfj^g ^^ 

the few ; it will not be forg-otten that * perfection ' was the term ^^ aristo- 
. ... . . cracy of 

especially applied in their language to this privileged minority, intellect. 

as contradistinguished from the common herd of believers; 

and thus it will be readily understood why St Paul should go 

on to say that this universality of the Gospel is the one object 

of his contention, to which all the energies of his life are 

directed, and having done so, should express his intense anxiety 

for the Churches of Colossse and the neighbourhood, lest they 

should be led astray by a spurious wisdom to desert the true 

knowledge*. This danger also will enable us to appreciate a 

^ i. 28 vovOiTovvre's iravra iivOpwirov in some copies, the second in others, 

/cat 5t5d(T/coj'res tra-vTa dvOpuirov iv For re'Xeio;' see the note on the passage. 

Truer 7} (Tocpiq. 'iva irapaarriaoj/xei' rravra ^ The connexion of the sentences 

di/dpajTrov TiXeiov iv Xpia-T(p K.T.X. The should be carefully observed. After 

reiteration has offended the scribes; the passage quoted in the last note 

and the first TravTa wdpunro" is omitted comes the asseveration that this iti 




novel feature in another passage of the epistle. While dwelling 
on the obliteration of all distinctions in Christ, he repeats his 
earlier contrasts, ' Greek and Jew,' ' circumcision and uncircum- 
cision,' 'bondslave and free'; but to these he adds new words 
which at once give a wider scope and a more immediate appli- 
cation to the lesson. In Christ the existence of ' barbarian' and 
even ' Scythian,' the lowest type of barbarian, is extinguished \ 
As culture, civilisation, philosophy, knowledge, are no conditions 
of acceptance, so neither is their absence any disqualification in 
the believer. The aristocracy of intellectual discernment, which 
Gnosticism upheld in religion, is abhorrent to the first principles 
of the Gospel. 
He con- Hence also must be explained the frequent occurrence of 

true*^?-^ the words ' wisdom' {<70(f)La), 'intelligence' (o-vi/eo-t?), 'knowledge' 
dom with (rypoi}ai<i), 'perfect knowledge' {iiriyvcoai';), in this epistle^ St 
Paul takes up the language of his opponents, and translates it 
into a higher sphere. The false teachers put forward a 'philo- 
sophy,' but it was only an empty deceit, only a plausible display 
of false reasoning^ They pretended 'wisdom,' but it was 
merely the profession, not the reaUty*. Against these pretentions 
the Apostle sets the true wisdom of the Gospel. On its wealth, 
its fulness, its perfection, he is never tired of dwelling ^ The 
true wisdom, he would argue, is essentially spiritual and yet 
essentially definite ; while the false is argumentative, is specu- 

the one object of the Apostle's preach- ZKvd-rj^. There is nothing correspond- 
ing (i. 29) ei's Kal KOTTiio yc.i.X.; then ing to this in the paraUol passage, 
the expression of concern on behalf Gal. iii. 28. 

of the Colossians (ii. i) 6i\w yap vfids ' For ao<pia see i. 9, 28, ii. 3, iiL 16, 

eldivai tjXIkov dytSva ^x'^ ^^^P vfjLwv iv. 5 ; for criji'eais i. 9, ii. 2 ; for yvuais 

K.T.\.; then the desire that they may ii- 3; for inlyviodts i. 9, 10, ii. 2, 

be brought (ii. 2) eh irau ttXovtos t^s iii- >o- 

■tr\7)po<f>oplai TTis jweo-etus, eh iirl- ^ ii. 4 vidavoXoyla, ii. S Ktvr} aTraTT). 

yvua-iv Tov fx.v(TTTjplov rov Qeov ; then * ii- 23 \6yov iikv ^x"*""* (Xo<pia.%, 

the definition of this mystery (ii. 2, 3), where the ixkv suggests the contrast 

Xpiarov iv ^ elclv Traires ol Orjaavpol of the suppressed clause. 
K.r.X. ; then the warning against the * e.g. i. 9, 28, iii. 16 iv Trdffrj 

false teachers (ii 4) tovto Xiyca tVa ffo(plg. ; ii. 2 t^s trXrjpofpopiat. For the 

fxriMs mas Trapa\oyl^r]Tai K.T.X. 'wealth' of this knowledge compare 

^ Col. ui. II after irepiTofMij Kal i. 27, ii. 2, iii. 16; and see above 

iKpopvaHa the Apostle adds ^dp^apos, p. 44. 


lative, is vague and dreamy \ Again they had their rites of 
initiation. St Paul contrasts with these the one universal, com- aud dwells 
prehensive mystery*, the knowledge of God in Christ. This table mys- 
mystery is complete in itself: it contains 'all the treasures of ^^' 
wisdom and of knowledge hidden' in it^ Moreover it is offered 
to all without distinction : though once hidden, its revelation is 
unrestricted, except by the waywardness and disobedience of 
men. The esoteric spirit of Gnosticism finds no countenance in 
the Apostle's teaching. 

2. From the informing spirit of Gnosticism we turn to the 2. Specu- 
speculative tenets — the cosmogony and the theology of the tenets. 
Gnostic. «°--d 

And here too the affinities to Gnosticism reveal themselves tl^eology. 

in the Colossian heresy. We cannot fail to observe that the 

Apostle has in view the doctrine of intermediate agencies, re- st Paul 

garded as instruments in the creation and government of the ^octi-i^e of 

world. Though this tenet is not distinctly mentioned, it is angelic 

_ _ _ "^ mediators, 

tacitly assumed in the teaching which St Paul opposes to it. 
Against the philosophy of successive evolutions from the Divine 
nature, angelic mediators forming the successive links in the 
chain which binds the finite to the Infinite, he sets the doctrine 
of the one Eternal Son, the Word of God begotten before the setting 
worlds*. The angelology of the heretics had a twofold bearing ; thrdoc-^ 
it was intimately connected at once with cosmogony and with ^^'^^^^^^ 
religion. Correspondingly St Paul represents the mediatorial carnate, 
function of Christ as twofold : it is exercised in the natural 
creation, and it is exercised in the spiritual creation. In both 
these spheres His initiative is absolute. His control is universal, 
His action is complete. By His agency the world of matter was 
created and is sustained. He is at once the beginning and the 

^ ii. 4, 18. sages are i. 15 — 20, ii. 9 — 15. They 

^ i. 26, 27, ii. 2, iv. 3. will be found to justify the statements 

3 ii. 2 if (^ dalv TrdvTes oi 0ij<Tavpol in this and the following paragraphs 

T^s ao<pLas Kal ttjs 7i'W(Tea)s dir6Kpv(poi. of the text. For the meaning of in- 

For the meaning of dTr6Kpv<poi see above dividual expressions see the notes on 

p. 88, and the note on the passage. the passages. 

* The two great Christological pas- 



end of the material universe ; ' All things have been created 
through Him and unto Him.' Nor is His oflBce in the spiritual 
as the re- world less complete. In the Church, as in the Universe, He is 
heaven sole, absolute, supreme ; the primary source from which all life 
and earth, proceeds and the ultimate arbiter in whom all feuds are reconciled. 
His rela- On the One hand, in relation to Deity, He is the visible 

(i) Deity; image of the invisible God. He is not only the chief manifes- 
^^ ^9^ tation of the Divine nature : He exhausts the Godhead mani- 


fested. fested. In Him resides the totality of the Divine powers and 
attributes. For this totality Gnostic teachers had a technical 
The piero- term, the pleroma or plenitude^. From the pleroma they sup- 
in Him. posed that all those agencies issued, through which God has at 
any time exerted His power in creation, or manifested His will 
through revelation. These mediatorial beings would retain more 
or less of its influence, according as they claimed direct parentage 
from it or traced their descent through successive evolutions. 
But in aU cases this pleroma was distributed, diluted, transformed 
and darkened by foreign admixture. They were only partial and 
blurred images, often deceptive caricatures, of their original, 
broken lights of the great central Light. It is not improbable 
that, like later speculators of the same school, they found a place 
somewhere or other in their genealogy of spiritual beings for 
the Christ. If so, St Paul's language becomes doubly signifi- 
cant. But this hypothesis is not needed to explain its reference. 
In contrast to their doctrine, he asserts and repeats the asser- 
tion, that the pleroma abides absolutely and wholly in Christ 
as the Word of God^ The entire light is concentrated in 
(-2) Created Hence it follows that, as regards created things, His supre- 
absolute ^^ ™^^y ^^^^^ ^® absolute. In heaven as in earth, over things 
Lord. immaterial as over things material, He is king. Speculations on 
the nature of intermediate spiritual agencies — their names, their 
ranks, their offices — were rife in the schools of Judseo-Gnostic 

^ See the detached note on liK-f]- vX-qpcxifia KaroiKfjcrai, ii. 9 iv ai/ry Ka- 
pu/xa. TOiKet irdv to 7rX^/)w/ta rrji diOTrjros (rot- 

^ i. 19 iv aiiTi^ ev5oK7](Tev irav rb fiariKuis. 


thought. ' Thrones, dominations, princedoms, virtues, powers' — 
these formed part of the spiritual nomenclature which they had 
invented to describe diiferent grades of angelic mediators. 
Without entering into these speculations, the Apostle asserts 
that Christ is Lord of all, the highest and the lowest, what- 
ever rank they may hold and by whatever name they are 
called \ for they are parts of creation and He is the source of 
creation. Through Him they became, and unto Him they 

Hence the worship of angels, which the false teachers incul- Angelola- 
cated, was utterly wrong in principle. The motive of this therefore 
angelolatry it is not difficult to imagine. There was a show of condemh- 
humility^, for there was a confession of weakness, in this sub- 
servience to inferior mediatorial agencies. It was held feasible 
to grasp at the lower links of the chain which bound earth 
to heaven, when heaven itself seemed far beyond the reach 
of man. The successive grades of intermediate beings were 
as successive steps, by which man might mount the ladder 
leading up to the throne of God. This carefully woven web 
of sophistry the Apostle tears to shreds. The doctrine of the 
false teachers was based on confident assumptions respecting 
angelic beings of whom thoy could know nothing. It was 
moreover a denial of Christ's twofold personality and His 
mediatorial office. It follows from the true conception of as a denial 
Christ's Person, that He and He alone can bridge over the feet media- 
chasm between earth and heaven ; for He is at once the lowest ^^^^' 
and the higtest. He raises up man to God, for He brings down 
God to man. Thus the chain is reduced to a single link, 
this link being the Word made flesh. As the pleroma resides 
in Him, so is it communicated to us through Him^ To sub- 
stitute allegiance to any other spiritual mediator is to sever 

^ See especially i. i6 eiVe 6p6voi Compare also ii. lo i) K€4>a\7] -n-da-q^ 

dre Kvpidrrjres dre dpxal dre i^ovaiai dpxvs Kcd i^ovfflas, and ii. 15 dTr€Kdv(rd- 

K.T.X., compared witli the parallel pas- fievo^ rets dpxds Kal -nxs e^ovcrlai k.t.X. 
sage in Eph. i. 21 vtrepdvo} irdcnji dpxrj^ * ii. 18 deXwu ii> TaweLvo<ppoirvP'r} kuI 

Kat i^ovcias Kal Swdpieus Kal KvpidrTjTOS dprjcTKeiq. tw dyyiXuv k.t.X, 
Kal iravTos ovofiaros ovofial'ou^vov k.t.X. ^ ii. 10; comp. i. 9. 


the connexion of the limbs with the Head, which is the centre 
of life and the mainspring of all energy throughout the body^. 
The Apo- Hence follows the practical conclusion, that, whatever is 

ticaHnf^°" ^0^®' must be done in the name of the Lord^. Wives must 
ence. submit to their husbands 'in the Lord': children must obey 

their parents 'in the Lord' : servants must work for their mas- 
ters as working 'unto the Lordl' This iteration, ' in the Lord,' 
' unto the Lord,' is not an irrelevant form of words ; but arises 
as an immediate inference from the main idea which under- 
lies the doctrinal portion of the epistle. 
3. Moral 3. It has been shown that the speculative tenets of Gnos- 

Gnostic'^ ticism might lead (and as a matter of fact we know that 
doctrine, they did lead) to either of two practical extremes, to rigid 
asceticism or to unbridled license. The latter alternative ap- 
pears to some extent in the heresy of the Pastoral Epistles* 
and still more plainly in those of the Catholic Epistles® and 
the Apocalypse ^ It is constantly urged by Catholic writers as 
a reproach against later Gnostic sects'". 
Asceticism But the former and nobler extreme was the first impulse 
lossi ^^' ^^ ^^'^ Gnostic. To escape from the infection of evil by escap- 
heresy [^g from the domination of matter was his chief anxiety. This 
appears very plainly in the Colossian heresy. Though the pro- 
hibitions to which the Apostle alludes might be explained in 
part by the ordinances of the Mosaic ritual, this explanation 
will not cover all the facts. Thus for instance drinks are 
mentioned as weU as meats ^ though on +he former the law 
of Moses is silent. Thus again the rigorous denunciation, ' Touch 
not, taste not, handle notV seems to go very far beyond the 
Levitical enactments. And moreover the motive of these pro- 

1 ii. 18. iv. 2 the ascetic tendency stUl pre- 

2 iii. I J. dominates. 

3 iii. 18, 20, -23. ^ 2 Pet. ii. 10 sq., Jude 8. 
* At least in 2 Tim. iii. i — 7, where, ^ Apoc. ii. 14, 20 — 22. 

though the most monstrous develop- ' See the notes on Clem. Bom. Ep. 

ments of the evil were stiU future, ii. § 9. 
the Apostle's language implies that it ^ ii. 16. 

had already begun. On the other hand ^ ii. 21. 

iu the picture of the heresy in i Tim. 


hibitions is Essene rather than Pharisaic, Gnostic rather than not ex- 
Jewish. These severities of discipline were intended ' to check fts^juda- ^ 
indulgence of the flesh \' They professed to treat the body ^^'^• 
with entire disregard, to ignore its cravings and to deny its 
wants. In short they betray a strong ascetic tendency^, of 
which normal Judaism, as represented by the Pharisee, offers 
no explanation. 

And St Paul's answer points 10 the same inference. The St Paul's 
difference will appear more plainly, if we compare it with his shmvs its 

treatment of Pharisaic Judaism in the Galatian Church. This ^^0?*^^° 


epistle offers nothing at all corresponding to his language on 
that occasion ; ' If righteousness be by law, then Christ died 
in vain* ; ' If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you no- 
thing'; 'Christ is nullified for you, whosoever are justified by 
law ; ye are fallen from grace ^' The point of view in fact is 
wholly changed. With these Essene or Gnostic Judaizers the 
Mosaic law was neither the motive nor the standard, it was only 
the starting point, of their austerities. Hence in replying the 
Apostle no longer deals with law, as law ; he no longer points It is no 
the contrast of grace and works ; but he enters upon the moral confrLt of 

aspects of these ascetic practices. He denounces them, as con- ^^^ ^^^ 
*■ ^ grace. 

centrating the thoughts on earthly and perishable things*. 
He points out that they fail in their purpose, and are found 
valueless against carnal indulgences®. In their place he offers 
the true and only remedy against sin — the elevation of the 
inner life in Christ, the transference of the affections into a 
higher sphered where the temptations of the flesh are powerless. 
Thus dying with Christ, they will kill all their earthly mera- 
bers^ Thus rising with Christ, they will be renewed in the 
image of God their Creator*. 

* ii. 23. remarks in the text apply only to the 

^ Asceticism is of two kinds. There former, 

is the asceticism of duahsm (whether =* Gal. ii. 21, v. 2, 4, 

conscious or unconscious), which springs * ii. 8, 20 — 22. 

from a false principle; and there is the ^ ii. 23 ovk iv ri/xy rtul irpos ■7rXr)af/.o- 

asceticism of self-discipline, which is vrjv rijs aapKds: see the note on these 

the training of the Christian athlete words. « iii. i, 2. 

(i Cor. ix. 27). I need not say that the ^ iii. 3, 5. ^ hi. ro. 


The truth ^^ attempting to draw a complete portrait of the Colossian 

"bov^r tieresy from a few features accidentally exhibited in St Paul's 

Bult tested epistle, it has been necessary to supply certain links ; and 

some assurance may not unreasonably be required that this 

has not been done arbitrarily. Nor is this security wantinsr. 

In all such cases the test will be twofold. The result must 

be consistent with itself: and it must do no violence to the 

historical conditions under which the phenomena arose. 

(i) Its in- I- I^ t^® present instance the former of these tests is fully 

herent satisfied. The consistency and the symmetry of the result is 
consisten- _ j j j 

cy and its great recommendation. The postulate of a Gnostic type 

symmetry. , . , ,.1 . . ,. 

brings the separate parts oi the representation into direct con- 
nexion. The speculative opinions and the practical tenden- 
cies of the heresy thus explain, and are explained by, each 
other. It is analogous to the hypothesis of the comparative 
anatomist, who by referring the fossil remains to their proper 
type restores the whole skeleton of some unknown animal from 
a few bones belonging to different extremities of the body, and 
without the intermediate and connecting parts. In the one ease, 
as in the other, the result is the justification of the postulate. 
(2) Its 2. And again; the historical conditions of the problem 

historical ^^® carefully observed. It has been shown already, that Ju- 
sequence. daism in the preceding age had in one of its developments 
assumed a form which was the natural precursor of the Colos- 
sian heresy. In order to complete the argument it will be 
necessary to show that Christianity in the generation next suc- 
ceeding exhibited a perverted type, which was its natural out- 
growth. If this can be done, the Colossian heresy will take 
its proper place in a regular historical sequence. 

Continu- I have already pointed out that the language of St John 

this^tvpe i^ *^® Apocalypse, which was probably written within a few 
of Judiiio- years of this epistle, seems to imply the continuance in this 
cism in the district of the same type of heresy which is here denounced 
by St Paul\ But the notices in this book are not more de- 

1 See above p. 41 sq. 


finite than those of the Epistle to the Colossians itself; and 
we are led to look outside the Canonical writings for some 
more explicit evidence. Has early Christian history then pre- 
served any record of a distinctly Gnostic school existing on the 
confines of the Apostolic age, which may be considered a legiti- 
mate development of the phase of religious speculation that 
confronts us here ? 

We find exactly the phenomenon which we are seeking in Heresy of 
the heresy of Cerinthus\ The time, the place, the circum- 
stances, all agree. This heresiarch is said to have been origin- 
ally a native of Alexandria^ ; but proconsular Asia is allowed His date 
on all hands to have been the scene of his activity as a ^" ^ ^'^^ 
teacher^. He lived and taught at the close of the Apostolic 
age, that is, in the latest decade of the first century. Some 
writers indeed make him an antagonist of St Peter and St 
Paul*, but their authority is not trustworthy, nor is this very 
early date at all probable. But there can be no reasonable 
doubt that he was a contemporary of St John, who was related 
by Polycarp to have denounced him face to face on one me- 
morable occasion®, and is moreover said by Irenaeus to have 
written his Gospel with the direct object of confuting his errors^ 

1 The relation of Cerintlius to the with St John in the bath is placed at 
Colossian heresy is briefly indicated Ephesus : see below, note 5. 
by Neander Planting of Christianity * Epiphanius (xxviii. 2 sq.) repre- 
I. p. 325 sq. (Eng. Trans.). It has sents him as the ringleader of the 
been remarked by other writers also, Judaizing opponents of the Apostles 
both earlier and later. The subject in the Acts and Epistles to the Co- 
appears to me to deserve a fuller rinthians and Galatians. Philastrius 
investigation than it has yet re- (Hccr. 36) takes the same line, 
ceived. ^ The well-known story of the en- 

3 Hipi^ol. Hcer. vii. 33 Alywrluv counter between St John and Cerinthus 

vaidelq, d(TK7]9els, X. 21 6 ev AlytJTrrq} in the bath is related by Irenaeus 

dffKrjdeU, Theodoret. Hcer. Fab. ii. 3 iv (iii. 3. 4) on the authority of Polycarp, 

AlyiJirT(f3 irKeiffTov Siarpiyj/as XP^"'^"- who appears from the sequence of 

3 Iren. i. 26. i 'et Cerinthus autem IreoiEus' narrative to have told it at Asia docuit,' Epiphan. Bome, when he paid his visit to Ani- 

H(sr. xxviii. r iyivero Si oStos 6 KiJ- cetus ; os koI iirl 'Avikt/tov iTrtSrifnjcra? 

ptvdos if ry 'Acrlq, Ziarpi^wv, KaKuce Ty'Fufiri TroWois dwo tup irpoeipyj/n^i/wv 

rod K7)pvynaTos tt]v apx^]" irewoi'qp.ivo?, alperiKiSi' iwi<Trpe\pev...Kal elalv oi a/ci;- 

Theodoret. 1. c. varepov et's rriv 'Aalav /coires avrou Sri 'Jcodvurjs K.r.X. 

dd>lKero. The scene of his encounter ^ iren. iii. n. i. 


Cerinthus ' Cerinthus,' writes Neander, ' is best entitled to be con- 

tween Ju- sidered as the intermediate link between the Judaizing and 
daism and ^y^q Qnostic sects.' ' Even among the ancients,' he adds, ' opposite 
cism. reports respecting his doctrines have been given from opposite 
points of view, according as the Gnostic or the Judaizing element 
was exclusively insisted upon : and the dispute on this point 
has been kept up even to modern times. In point of chro- 
nology too Cerinthus may be regarded as representing the prin- 
ciple in its transition from Judaism to Gnosticism \' 
Judaism Of his Judaism no doubt has been or can be entertained. 

rninpTiTin "^^^^ gross Chiliastic doctrine ascribed to him'*, even though 
his system [^ jj^g^y j^^ve been exaggerated in the representations of ad- 
verse writers, can only be explained by a Jewish origin. His 
conception of the Person of Christ was Ebionite, that is Judaic, 
in its main features ^ He is said moreover to have enforced 
the rite of circumcision and to have inculcated the observance 
of sabbaths*. It is related also that the Cerinthians, like the 
Ebionites, accepted the Gospel of St Matthew alone^. 
though At the same time, it is said by an ancient writer that his 

cism is' adherence to Judaism was only partial. This limitation is 

ah-eady^ doubtless correct. As Gnostic principles asserted themselves 
aggressive. . 

more distinctly, pure Judaism necessarily suffered. All or nearly 

all the early Gnostic heresies were Judaic ; and for a time a 
compromise was effected which involved more or less concession 
on either side. But the ultimate incompatibility of the two 
at length became evident, and a precarious alliance was ex- 
changed for an open antagonism. This final result however 
was not reached till the middle of the second century: and 
meanwhile it was a question to what extent Judaism was pre- 

1 Church History ii. p. 42 (Bohn's statements of these writers would not 
Trans.). carry much weight in' themselves; but 

2 See the Dialogue of Gains and in this instance they are rendered 
Proclus in Euseb. H. E. iii. 28, Dio- highly probable by the known Judaism 
nysius of Alexandria, ib. vii. 25, Theo- of Cerinthus. 

doret. 1. c, Augustin. liar. 8. ^ Epiphan. Heer. xxviii. 5, xxx. 14, 

^ See below p. iii. Philastr. Har. 36. 

* Epiphan. Hcer. xxviii. 4, 5, Phi- ^ Epii^han. ILcr. xxviii. i wpocrix^iv 

lastr. Uaer. 36, Augustin. 1. c. The ri^'lovbaC^ixQ dvo jxipovs. 


pared to make concessions for the sake of this new ally. Even 
the Jewish Essenes, as we have seen, departed from the ortho- 
dox position in the matter of sacrifices; and if we possessed 
fuller information, we should probably find that they made 
still larger concessions than this. Of the Colossian heretics 
we can only form a conjecture, but the angelology and an- 
gelolatry attributed to them point to a further step in the 
same direction. As we pass from them to Cerinthus we are 
no longer left in doubt ; for the Gnostic element has clearly Gnostic 
gained the ascendant, though it has not yet driven its rival ^is teach- 
out of the field. Two characteristic features in his teaching ^^' 
especially deserve consideration, both as evincing the tendency 
of 'his speculations and as throwing back light on the notices 
in the Colossian Epistle. 

I. His cosmogony is essentially Gnostic. The great pro- r. His 
blem of creation presented itself to him in the same aspect; cosmo- 
and the solution which he offered was generically the same. ^^^^ 
The world, he asserted, was not made by the highest God, 
but by an angel or power far removed from, and ignorant of, 
this Supreme Being \ Other authorities describing his sys- 
tem speak not of a single power, but of powers, as creating 
the universe^: but all alike represent this demiurge, or these 

1 Iren. i. 26. i 'Non a primo Deo atque virtutes, quos distantes longe a 

factum esse mundum docuit, sed a superioribus virtutibus mundum istum 

virtute quadam valde separata et dis- in inferioribus partibus condidisse... 

tante ab ea principalitate quae est su- Post hunc Cerinthus hffireticus erupit, 

per uuiversa, et iguorante eum qui est similia docens. Nam et ipse mimdum 

super omnia Deum'; Hippol. ifter. vii. institutum esse ab illis dicit'; Epi- 

33 ^eyev oiix virb tov vpoSrov QeoD ye- phan. Har. xxviii. i ^va ehat ti2v 6.yyi- 

yovevai tov k6(T/j.ov, olW vtto Swd/xew Xuv tuv tov Kdcr/xov irfTroirjKdTuiv; Theo- 

Tivos K€xupi(r/x^vrjs Trjs vwkp to, 6\a e^ov- doret. II. F. ii. 3 eva fih elvat tov tujv 

alas Kal dyvoomTjs tov iiirkp TcdvTO. 6e6v, 5Xvv Qeov, ovk aiirov 5^ ehai tou kocfixov 

X. 21 VIVO 5vva./j,ei6s tlvos dyy^XLKrjS, orjpitovpyov, dXXd 8vvdfj.eis Tivds kcxu- 

TToXi) K€x<^pt(Tfi^vr]s Kai du<TTu>(T7]s TTJs puT/j.4vas Kal TTavTeXws auTov dyvooucra^ ; 

vtr^p TO. 6\a avdevnas Kal dyvoovcnjs tov Augustin. Har. 8. The one statement 

inrip irdvra Qe6v. is quite reconcilable with the other. 

* Pseudo-Tertull. Hcer. 3 • Carpocra- Among those angels by whose instru- 

tes praeterea hauc tulit sectam : Unam mentality the world was created, Ce- 

esse dicit virtutem in superioribus rinthus appears to have assigned a 

principalem, ex nac prolatos angelos position of preeminence to one, whom 


demiurges, as ignorant of the absolute God. It is moreover 
stated that he held the Mosaic law to have been given not 
by the supreme God Himself, but by this angel, or one of 
these angels, who created the world \ 
and conse- From these notices it is plain that angelology had an im- 
gelolo'n'." portant place in his speculations; and that he employed it 
to explain the existence of evil supposed to be inherent in 
the physical world, as well as to account for the imperfections 
of the old dispensation. The 'remote distance' of his angelic 
demiurge from the supreme God can hardly be explained ex- 
cept on the h3rpothesis of successive generations of these inter- 
mediate agencies. Thus his solution is thoroughly Gnostic. 
At the same time, as contrasted with later and more sharply 
defined Gnostic systems, the Judaic origin and complexion of 
his cosmogony is obvious. His intermediate agencies still re- 
tain the name and the personality of angels, and have not 
yet given way to those vague idealities which, as emaniitions 
Angels of or seons, took their place in later speculations. Thus his theory 
seons of is linked on to the angelology of later Judaism founded on 
later Gnos- ^}^q angelic appearances recorded in the Old Testament nar- 
rative. And again : while later Gnostics represent the demi- 
urge and giver of the law as antagonistic to the supreme and 
good God, Cerinthus does not go beyond postulating his igno- 
rance. He went as far as he could without breaking entirely 
with the Old Testament and abandoning his Judaic standing- 
Cerinthus In these respects Cerinthus is the proper link between the 

tween the incipient gnosis of the Colossian heretics and the mature 
Colossian gr^Qgjg of the second century. In the Colossian epistle we 

heresy and » j r 

later Gnos- still breathe the atmosphere of Jewish angelology, nor is there 

ticism. ..„,., , . 

any trace of the ceon or later Gnosticism , while yet speculation 

is so far advanced that the angels have an importaot function 

he regarded as the demiiu-ge m a Htcr. xx^aii. 4 t6v SeSujKOTa vofxov iva 

special sense and under whom the elcai tuv dyyiXuv tw tov Koafxov ire- 

others worked ; see Neander CItuixh ttoltikotuv. 

History 11. p. 43. ^ I am quite unable to see any 

^ Pseudo-Tertull. 1. c. ; Epiphan. reference to the Gnostic conception of 


in explaining the mysteries of the creation and government 
of the world. On the other hand it has not reached the 
point at which we find it in Cerinthus. Gnostic conceptions 
respecting the relation of the demiurgic agency to the supreme 
God would appear to have passed through three stages. This 
relation was represented first, as imperfect appreciation ; next, 
as entire ignorance ; lastly, as direct antagonism. The second 
and third are the standing points of Cerinthus and of the later 
Gnostic teachers respectively. The first was probably the 
position of the Colossian false teachers. The imperfections 
of the natural world, they would urge, were due to the limited 
capacities of these angels to whom the demiurgic work was 
committed, and to their imperfect sympathy with the Supreme 
God ; but at the same time they might fitly receive worship 
as mediators between God and man ; and indeed humanity 
seemed in its weakness to need the intervention of some such 
beings less remote from itself than the highest heaven. 

2. Again the Christology of Cerinthus deserves attention i. His 
from this point of view. Here all our authorities are agreed. \ogy. 
As a Judaizer Cerinthus held with the Ebionites that Jesus 
was only the son of Joseph and Mary, born in the natural way. 
As a Gnostic he maintained that the Christ first descended in 
the form of a dove on the carpenter's son at his bajJtism ; that 
He revealed to him the unknown Father, and worked miracles 
through him : and that at length He took His flight and left 
him, so that Jesus alone suffered and rose, while the Christ 
remained impassible \ It would appear also, though this is 

an (Eon in the passages of the New sq.) attempts to show that Cerinthus 

Testament, which are sometimes quoted did not separate the Christ from 

in support of this view, e.g., by Baur Jesus, and that Irenjeus (and subse- 

PawZzis p. 428, Burton Lecfwres p. Ill quent authors copying him) have 

sq. wrongly attributed to this heretic the 

^ Iren. i. 26. i, Hippol. Hccr. vii. theories of later Gnostics, seem insuf- 

33, X. 21, Epiphan. Hizr. xxviii. i, ficient to outweigh these dhect state- 

Theodoret. H. F. ii. 3. The argu- ments. It is more probable that the 

ments by which Lipsius [Gnosticismus system of Cerinthus should have ad- 

pp. 245, 258, in Ersch u. Gruber; mitted some foreign elements not very 

Quellenkritik des Epiphanios p. 118 consistent with his Judaic standing 



not certain, that he described this re-ascension of the Christ as 

a return ' to His own pleroma^.' 

Approach Now it is not clear from St Paul's language what opinions 

Cerinthian ^^® Colossian heretics held respecting the person of our Lord ; 

Christo- i)ut we may safely assume that he regarded them as inadequate 
lo<jy in the j j o n. 

Colossian and derogatory. The emphasis, with which he asserts the 


eternal being and absolute sovereignty of Christ, can hardly be 
explained in any other way. But individual expressions tempt 
us to conjecture that the same ideas were already floating in 
the air, which ultimately took form and consistency in the 
tenets of Cerinthus. Thus, when he reiterates the statement 
that the whole pleroma abides permanently in Christ^, he 
would appear to be tacitly refuting some opinion which main- 
tained only mutable and imperfect relations between the two. 
When again he speaks of the true gospel first taught to the 
Colossians as the doctrine of ' the Christ, even Jesus the LordV 
his language might seem to be directed against the tendency 
to separate the heavenly Christ from the earthly Jesus, as 
though the connexion were only transient. When lastly he 
dwells on the work of reconciliation, as wrought ' through the 
blood of Christ's cross,' 'in the body of His flesh through 
death*,' we may perhaps infer that he already discerned a 
disposition to put aside Christ's passion as a stumbling-block 
in the way of philosophical religion. Thus regarded, the 

point, than that these writers should in suum pleroma ' The doctrine is pre- 

have been misinformed. Inconsistency cisely that which he has before as- 

was a necessary condition of Judaic cribed to Cerinthus (i. 26. i), but the 

Gnosticism. The point however is mode of statement may have been 

compai'atively unimportant as affect- borrowed from the Nicolaitans or the 

ing my main purpose. Valentinians or some other later Gnos- 

^ Ii-eu8Bus (iii. 11. i ), after speaking tics. There is however no improbabi- 

of Cerinthus, the Nicolaitans, and lity in the supposition that Cerinthus 

others, proceeds ' non, quemadmodum used the word _pZero77ia in this way. See 

illidicunt, alteram quidemfabricatorem the detaxihed note on wXrjpujia below, 

(i.e. demiurgum), ahum autem Patrem ^ {_ j^^ jj. g_ See above p. 100, note 2. 

Domini : et alium quidem fabricatoris On the force of KaroiKelv see the note 

fiUiun, alterum vero de superioribus on the earUer of the two passages. 

Christum, quem et impassibilem per- '^ n. 6 TrapeXa^Sexe tov X/jkttoj', 'I1^ 

severasse, descendentem in Jesum cow tov 'Kvpiov. 

fihum fabricatoris, et iterum revolasse * i. 20, 22. 


Apostle's language gains force and point ; though no stress can 

be laid on explanations which are so largely conjectural. 

But if so, the very generality of his language shows that The Gnos- 

these speculations were still vague and fluctuating. The dif- t]^e^™oios- 

ference which separates these heretics from Cerinthus may be sians being 
^ _ _ _ _ "^ vague and 

measured by the greater precision and directness in the Apo- undeve- 

stoiic counter-statement, as we turn from the Epistle to the 
Colossians to the Gospel of St John. In this interval, extend- 
ing over nearly a quarter of a century, speculation has taken 
a definite shape. The elements of Gnostic theory, which 
were before held in solution, had meanwhile crystallized around 
the facts of the Gospel. Yet still we seem justified, even at 
the earlier date, in speaking of these general ideas as Gnostic, 
guarding ourselves at the same time against misunderstanding 
with the twofold caution, that we here employ the term to 
express the simplest and most elementary conceptions of this 
tendency of thought, and that we do not postulate its use as a 
distinct designation of any sect or sects at this early date. 
Thus limited, the view that the writer of this epistle is com- 
bating a Gnostic heresy seems free from all objections, while it 
appears necessary to explain his language ; and certainly it 
does not, as is sometimes imagined, place any weapon in the 
hands of those who would assail the early date and Apostolic 
authorship of the epistle. 



The under- TTTITHOUT the preceding investigation the teaching of this 

thehercsy » » epistle would be very imperfectly understood; for its 

necessary. (Jij-gction was necessarily determined by the occasion which gave 

rise to it. Only when we have once grasped the nature of 

the doctrine which St Paul is combating, do we perceive that 

every sentence is instinct with life and meaning. 

The errors We have seen that the error of the heretical teachers was 

twofold twofold. They had a false conception in theology, and they had 

sprang a false basis of morals. It has been pointed out also, that these 
from one i i i i • • i 

root. two were closely connected together, and had their root in tlie 

same fundamental error, the idea of matter as the abode of evil 

and thus antagonistic to God. 

So the -^s the two elements of the heretical doctrine were derived 

answer to fj-Q^Q^ ^\^q game source, so the reply to both was sought by the 
both IS in ' . . 

the same Apostle in the same idea, the conception of the Person of Christ 

as the one absolute mediator between God and man, the true 

and only reconciler of heaven and earth. 

But though they are thus ultimately connected, yet it will 

be necessary for the fuller understanding of St Paul's position 

to take them apart, and to consider first the theological and 

then the ethical teaching of the epistle. 

,, The I. This Colossian heresy was no coarse and vulgar develop- 

teachm'^'^^ ment of falsehood. It soared far above the Pharisaic Judaism 

of the which St Paul refutes in the Epistle to the Galatians. The 
heretics. ... 

questions in which it was interested lie at the very root of our 


religious consciousness. The impulse was given to its specu- Its lofty 
lations by an overwhelming sense of the nnapproachable ' 

majesty of God, by an instinctive recognition of the chasm 
which separates God from man, from the world, from matter. 
Its energy was sustained by the intense yearning after some 
mediation which might bridge over this chasm, might establish 
inter-communion between the finite and the Infinite. Up to 
this point it was deeply religious in the best sense of the term. 

The answer which it gave to these questions we have but com- 
already seen. In two respects this answer failed signally. On failure. 
the one hand it was drawn from the atmosphere of mystical 
speculation. It had no foundation in history, and made no 
appeal to experience. On the other hand, notwithstanding 
its complexity, it v/as unsatisfactory in its results ; for in this 
plurality of mediators none was competent to meet the require- 
ments of the case. God here and man there — no ano-el or 


spirit, whether one or more, being neither God nor man, could 
truly reconcile the two. Thus as regards credentials it was 
without a guarantee ; while as regards efficiency it was wholly 

The Apostle pointed out to the Colossians a more excellent The 
way. It was the one purpose of Christianity to satisfy those answe/ ^ 
very yearnings which were working in their hearts, to solve p ^^ *^^ 
that very problem which had exercised their minds. In Christ of Christ, 
they would find the answer which they sought. His life — His 
cross and resurrection — was the guarantee ; His Person — the The me- 
Word Incarnate — was the solution. He alone filled up, He the world 
alone could fill up, the void which lay between God and man, church *^^ 
could span the gulf which separated the Creator and creation. 
This solution offered by the Gospel is as simple as it is ade- 
quate. To their cosmical speculations, and to their religious 
yearnings alike, Jesus Christ is the true answer. In the 
World, as in the Church, He is the one only mediator, the one 
only reconciler. This twofold idea runs like a double thread 
through the fabric of the Apostle's teaching in those passages 
of the epistle where he is describing the Person of Christ. 

COL. 8 


It will be convenient for the better understanding of St 
Paul's teaching to consider these two aspects of Christ's me- 
diation apart — its function in the natural and in the spiritual 
order respectively, 
(i) In the (i) The heresy of the Colossian teachers took its rise, as 

we saw, in their cosmical speculations. It was therefore natural 
that the Apostle in replying should lay stress on the function 
of the Word in the creation and government of the world. 
This is the aspect of His work most prominent in the first 
of the two distinctly Christological passages. The Apostle 
there predicates of the Word, not only prior, but absolute 
existence. All things were created through Him, are sustained 
in Him, are tending towards Him. Thus He is the begin- 
ning, middle, and end, of creation. This He is, because He 
is the very image of the Invisible God, because in Him dwells 
the plenitude of Deity. 
Impor- This creative and administrative work of Christ the Word 

this aspect ill the natural order of things is always emphasized in the 
Person f ^^^^^1^0^ of the Apostles, when they touch upon the doctrine 
Christ, of His Person. It stands in the forefront of the prologue to 
St John's Gospel : it is hardly less prominent in the opening 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews. His mediatorial function in the 
Church is represented as flowing from His mediatorial func- 
tion in the world. With ourselves this idea has retired very 
much into the background. Though in the creed common 
to all the Churches we profess our belief in Him, as the 
Being * through whom all things were created,' yet in reality 
this confession seems to exercise very little influence on our 
thoughts. And the loss is serious. How much our theological 
conceptions suffer in breadth and fulness by the neglect, a 
moment's reflexion will show. How much more hearty would be 
the sympathy of theologians with the revelations of science and 
the developments of history, if they habitually connected them 
with the operation of the same Divine Word who is the centre 
of all their religious aspirations, it is needless to say. Through 
the recognition of this idea with all the consequences which 


flow from it, as a living influence, more than in any other way, 
may we hope to strike the chords of that ' vaster music,' which 
results only from the harmony of knowledge and faith, of rever- 
ence and research. 

It will be said indeed, that this conception leaves un- notwith- 
touched the philosophical difficulties which beset the subject ; difficulties 
that creation still remains as much a mystery as before, goi^^' 
This may be allowed. But is there any reason to think that 
with our present limited capacities the veil which shrouds it 
ever will be or can be removed ? The metaphysical specula- 
tions of twenty-five centuries have done nothing to raise it. 
The physical investigations of our own age from their very 
nature can do nothing; for, busied with the evolution of phe- 
nomena, they lie wholly outside this question, and do not even 
touch the fringe of the difficulty. But meanwhile revelation 
has interposed and thrown out the idea, which, if it leaves 
many questions unsolved, gives a breadth and unity to our 
conceptions, at once satisfying our religious needs and linking 
our scientific instincts with our theological beliefs. 

(ii) But, if Christ's mediatorial office in the physical crea- (ii) In the 
1 • • /> 1 » 1 > 1 • TT- Church. 

tion was the starting pomt 01 the Apostles teachmg. His 

mediatorial office in the spiritual creation is its principal theme. 
The cosmogonies of the false teachers were framed not so 
much in the interests of philosophy as in the interests of re- 
ligion ; and the Apostle replies to them in the same spirit 
and with the same motive. If the function of Christ is unique 
in the Universe, so is it also in the Church. He is the sole Its abso- 
and absolute link between God and humanity. Nothing short racter. 
of His personality would suffice as a medium of reconcilia- 
tion between the two. Nothing short of His life and work 
in the flesh, as consummated in His passion, would serve as 
an assurance of God's love and pardon. His cross is the atone- 
ment of mankind with God. He is the Head with whom 
all the living members of the body are in direct and imme- 
diate communication, who suggests their manifold activities 
to each, who directs their several functions in subordination 




tions are 

in the 
by His 
in the 

of the 
doctrine of 
the Word 

to the healthy working of the whole, from whom they indi- 
vidually receive their inspiration and their strength. 

And being all this He cannot consent to share His prero- 
gative with others. He absorbs in Himself the whole function 
of mediation. Through Him alone, without any interposing 
link of communication, the human soul has access to the 
Father. Here was the true answer to those deep yearnings after 
spiritual communion with God, which sought, and could not 
find, satisfaction in the manifold and fantastic creations of a 
dreamy mysticism. The worship of angels might have the 
semblance of humiUty; but it was in fact a contemptuous 
defiance of the fundamental idea of the Gospel, a flat denial 
of the absolute character of Christ's Person and office. It 
was a severance of the proper connexion with the Head, an 
amputation of the disordered limb, which was thus disjoined 
from the source of life and left to perish for want of spiritual 

The language of the New Testament wi-iters is beset with 
difficulties, so long as we conceive of our Lord only in con- 
nexion with the Gospel revelation : but, when with the Apo- 
stles we realise in Him the same Divine Word who is and 
ever has been the light of the whole world, who before Chris- 
tianity wrought first in mankind at large through the avenues 
of the conscience, and afterwards more particularly in the Jews 
through a special though still imperfect revelation, then all 
these difficulties fall away. Then we understand the signifi- 
cance, and we recognise the truth, of such passages as these : 
' No man cometh unto the Father, but by me' : ' There is no 
salvation in any other'; 'He that disbelieveth the Son shall 
not see life, but the wrath of God abideth upon him\' The 
exclusive claims advanced in Christ's name have their full and 
perfect justification in the doctrine of the Eternal Word. 

The old dispensation is primarily the revelation of the abso- 
lute sovereignty of God. It vindicates this truth against two 
opposing forms of error, which in their extreme types are repre- 
1 Joh. xiv. 6, Acts iv. 12, Job. iii. 36. 


sented by Pantheism and Manicheism reapectively. The Pan- to the mo- 
theist identifies God with the world : the Manichee attributes of the Old 
to the world an absolute existence, independent of God. With Testa- 
the Pantheist sin ceases to have any existence : for it is only 
one form of God's working. With the Manichee sin is in- 
herent in matter, which is antagonistic to God. The teaching 
of the Old Testament, of which the key-note is struck in the 
opening chapters of Genesis, is a refutation of both these errors. 
God is distinct from the world, and He is the Creator of 
the world. Evil is not inherent in God, but neither is it in- 
herent in the material world. Sin is the disobedience of in- 
telligent beings whom He has created, and whom He has 
endowed with a free-will, which they can use or misuse. 

The revelation of the New Testament is the proper com- The New 
plement to the revelation of the Old. It holds this position in jg^comple- 

two main respects. If the Old Testament sets forth the abso- menta^ 

, , , . to the Old. 

lute unity of God — His distinctness from and sovereignty over 

His creatures — the New Testament points out how He holds 

communion with the world and with humanity, how man 

becomes one with Him. And again, if the Old Testament 

shows the true character of sin, the New Testament teaches 

the appointed means of redemption. On the one hand the 

monotheism of the Old Testament is supplemented by the 

theanthropism^ of the New. Thus the theology of revelation is 

completed. On the other hand, the hamartiology of the Old 

Testament has its counterpart in the soteriology of the New. 

Thus the economy of revelation is perfected. 

1 I am indebted for the term thean- In applymg the terms theanthro- 

thropism, as describing the substance pism and soteriology to the New Testa- 

of the new dispensation, to an article ment, as distinguished from the Old, 

by Prof. Westcott in the Contemporary it is not meant to suggest that the 

Eevieiu iv. p. 417 (December, 1867); ideas involved in them were wholly 

but it has been used independently, wanting in the Old, but only to indi- 

though in very rare instances, by other cate that the conceptions, which were 

writers. The value of terms such as I inchoate and tentative and subsidiary 

have employed here in fixing ideas is in the one, attain the most prominent 

enhanced by their strangeness, and wUl position and are distinctly realised in 

excuse any appearance of affectation. the other. 



2. The 
error of 
the here- 


hut funda- 
and con- 

St Paul 
tutes a 
for ordi- 

2. When Ave turn from tlie theology of these Colossian 
heretics to their ethical teaching, we find it characterised by 
the same earnestness. Of them it might indeed be said that 
they did ' hunger and thirst after righteousness.' Escape from 
impurity, immunity from evil, was a passion with them. But 
it was no less true that notwithstanding all their sincerity they 
'went astray in the wilderness' ; * hungry and thirsty, their soul 
fainted within them.' By their fatal transference of the abode of 
sin from the human heart within to the material world without, 
they had incapacitated themselves from finding the true anti- 
dote. Where they placed the evil, there they necessarily sought 
the remedy. Hence they attempted to fence themselves about, 
and to purify their lives by a code of rigorous prohibitions. 
Their energy was expended on battling with the physical con- 
ditions of human life. Their whole mind was absorbed in 
the struggle with imaginary forms of evil. Necessarily their 
character was moulded by the thoughts which habitually en- 
gaged them. Where the 'elements of the world,' the 'things 
which perish in the usingV engrossed all their attention, it 
could not fail but that they should be dragged down from the 
serene heights of the spiritual life into the cloudy atmosphere 
which shrouds this lower earth. 

St Paul sets himself to combat this false tendency. For 
negative prohibitions he substitutes a positive principle ; for 
special enactments, a comprehensive motive. He tells them 
that all their scrupulous restrictions are vain, because they fail 
to touch the springs of action. If they would overcome the 
evil, they must strike at the root of the evil. Their point of 
view must be entirely changed. They must transfer them- 
selves into a wholly new sphere of energy. This transference 
is nothing less than a migration from earth to heaven — from 
the region of the external and transitory to the region of 
the spiritual and eternaP. For a code of rules they must 
substitute a principle of life, which is one in its essence but 

U. 20, 22. 

111. I sq. 


infinite in its application, which will meet every emergency, 
will control every action, will resist every form of evil. 

This principle they have in Christ. With Him they have This prin- 

ciT)!© is 

died to the world ; with Him they have risen to God. Christ, the hea- 
the revelation of God's holiness, of God's righteousness, of^^^g^ 
God's love, is light, is life, is heaven. With Him they have been 
translated into a higher sphere, have been brought face to face 
with the Eternal Presence. Let them only realise this trans- 
lation. It involves new insight, new motives, new energies. 
They will no more waste themselves upon vexatious special 
restrictions : for they will be furnished with a higher inspiration 
which will cover all the minute details of action. They will 
not exhaust their energies in crushing this or that rising desire, 
but they will kill the whole body^ of their earthly passions 
through the strong arm of this personal communion with God 
in Christ. 

When we once grasp this idea, which lies at the root of St Paul's 
St Paul's ethical teaching, the moral difficulty which is sup- of faith 

posed to attach to his doctrine of faith and works has vanished. ^^^ works 
'^ ^ ^ ... . considered 

It is simply an impossibility that faith should exist without ip ^^^ 

works. Though in form he states his doctrine as a relation of this prin- 

contrast between the two, in substance it resolves itself into ^^^ ^' 

a question of precedence. Faith and works are related as 

principle and practice. Faith — the repose in the unseen, the 

recognition of eternal principles of truth and right, the sense 

of personal obligations to an Eternal Being who vindicates 

these principles — must come first. Faith is not an intellectual 

assent, nor a sympathetic sentiment merely. It is the absolute 

surrender of self to the will of a Being who has a right to 

command this surrender. It is this which places men in 

personal relation to God, which (in St Pauls language) justifies 

them before God. For it touches the springs of their actions ; 

it fastens not on this or that detail of conduct, but extends 

^ ii. II ep ry direKSvaei tov cwfia- vfieis to, irdura, and ver. 9 aireKSvad- 
ros T^s (TapKOS, iii. 5 veKpuaare ovv to, fievoi. tov iroKaiov dvdpwirov. See the 
(UXr) with ver. 8 vwl 6^ dwodeade koX notes on the several passages. 


throughout the whole sphere of moral activity ; and thus it 
determines their character as responsible beings in the sight 
of God. 

The From the above account it will have appeared that the dis- 

Christ- tinctive feature of this epistle is its Christology. The doctrine 
this epistle of the Person of Christ is here stated with greater precision 
and fulness than in any other of St Paul's epistles. It is 
therefore pertinent to ask (even though the answer must neces- 
sarily be brief) what relation this statement bears to certain 
other enunciations of the same doctrine ; to those for instance 

considered which occur elsewhere in St Paul's own letters, to those which 
in relation n i • » ^• •• i i-i 

to are found m other Apostonc writmgs, and to those which 

appear in the fathers of the succeeding generations. 

I. The I. The Christology of the Colossian Epistle is in no way 

logy of St different from that of the Apostle's earlier letters. It may 

Paul's indeed be called a development of his former teaching, but only- 
earlier ^ O' J 

epistles as exhibiting the doctrine in fresh relations, as drawing new 
deductions from it, as defining what had hitherto been left un- 
defined, not as superadding any foreign element to it. The 
doctrine is practically involved in the opening and closing words 
of his earliest extant epistle : ' The Church which is in God 
the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ ' ; ' The grace of our Lord 
Jesus Christ be with you \' The main conception of the Person 
of Christ, as enforced in the Colossian Epistle, alone justifies and 
explains this language, which otherwise would be emptied of all 
significance. And again : it had been enunciated by the Apostle 
explicitly, though briefly, in the earliest directly doctrinal passage 
which bears on the subject ; ' One Lord Jesus Christ, through 
whom are all things and we through Him^.' The absolute 
the same universal mediation of the Son is declared as unreservedly in 
stance' hut ^^^^ passage from the First Epistle to the Corinthians, as in any 

^ I Thess. i. r,v. 28. even where the term itself is not 

" I Cor. viii. 6 5i' ov rh iravra Kal used. See the dissertation on the doc- 

Tjixeis 5i' aiiTov. The expression Si' ov trine of the Logos in the Apostolic 

implies the conception of the Logos, writers. 


later statement of the Apostle : and, if all tlie doctrinal and less fully 
practical inferences which it implicitly involves were not 
directly emphasized at this early date, it was because the cir- 
cumstances did not yet require explicitness on these points. 
New forms of error bring into prominence new aspects of the 
truth. The heresies of Laodicea and Colossse have been inva- 
luable to the later Church in this respect. The Apostle himself, 
it is not too much to say, realised with ever-increasing force the 
manifoldness, the adaptability, the completeness of the Christian 
idea, notwithstanding its simplicity, as he opposed it to each 
successive development of error. The Person of Christ proved 
the complete answer to false speculations at Colossas, as it had 
been found the sovereign antidote to false practices at Corinth. 
All these unforeseen harmonies must have appeared to him, as 
they will appear to us, fresh evidences of its truth. 

2. And when we turn from St Paul to the other Apostolic 2. The 
writings which dwell on the Person of Christ from a doctrinal oiogy of 
point of view, we find them enunciating it in language which Apostolic 
implies the same fundamental conception, though they may not writings. 
always present it in exactly the same aspect. More especially 
in the Epistle to the Hebrews first, and in the Gospel of St Their 
John afterwards, the form of expression is identical with the mental 
statement of St Paul. In both these writings the universe is ^•^^'^^i^y' 
said to have been created or to exist hy or through Him. 
This is the crucial expression, which involves in itself all 
the higher conceptions of the Person of Christ \ The Epistle 
to the Hebrews seems to have been written by a disciple of 
St Paul immediately after the Apostle's death, and therefore 
within some five or six years from the date which has been 
assigned to the Colossian letter. The Gospel of St John, if the 
traditional report may be accepted, dates about a quarter of a 
century later ; but it is linked with our epistle by the fact that 
the readers for whom it was primarily intended belonged to the 
neighbouring districts of proconsular Asia. Thus it illustrates, 

^ Joh. i. 3 iravTo. bC avrov iyivero k.t.\., Heb. i. 2 Si ov Kal iiroirjcrev toi)s 



of the 

3. The 

ology of 
the suc- 

Its loose- 
ness of 

and is illustrated by, the teaching of St Paul in this letter. 
More especially by the emphatic use of the term Logos, which 
St Paul for some reason has suppressed, it supplies the centre 
round which the ideas gather, and thus gives unity and direct- 
ness to the conception. 

In the Christology of these Apostolic writings there is a firm- 
ness and precision which leaves no doubt about the main con- 
ception present to the mind of the writers. The idea of Christ 
as an intermediate being, neither God nor man, is absolutely and 
expressly excluded. On the one hand His humanity is distinctly 
emphasized. On the other He is represented as existing from 
eternity, as the perfect manifestation of the Fatiier, as the abso- 
lute mediator in the creation and government of the world. 

3. But, when we turn from these Apostolic statements to 
the writings of succeeding generations, we are struck with the 
contrast \ A vagueness, a flaccidity, of conception betrays itself 
in their language. 

In the Apostolic Fathers and in the earlier Apologists we 
find indeed for the most part a practical appreciation of the 
Person of Christ, which leaves nothing to be desired; but as 
soon as they venture upon any directly dogmatic statement, we 
miss at once the firmness of grasp and clearness of conception 
which mark the writings of the Apostles. If they desire to 
emphasize the majesty of His Person, they not unfrequently fall 
into language which savours of patripassianism^ If on the other 
hand they wish to present Him in His mediatorial capacity, 
they use words which seem to imply some divine being, who 
is God and yet not quite God, neither Creator nor creature'. 

1 The remarks on the theology of 
the Apostolic Fathers, as compared 
with the Apostles, in Dorner's Lehre 
von der Person Christi i. p. 130 sq. 
seem to me perfectly just and highly 
significant. See also Pressens^ Trois 
Premiers Slides 11. p. 406 sq. on the 
unsystematic spirit of the Apostolic 

* See for instance the passages 

quoted in the note on Clem. Eom. 2 
TO, TTaOijfiara avTOV. 

3 The imguarded language of Justin 
for instance illustrates the statement 
in the text. On the one hand Petar 
vius, Theol. Dogm. de Trin. ii. 3. 2, dis- 
tinctly accuses him of Arianism: on 
the other Bull, Dc/. Fid. Nic. ii. 4. r sq., 
indignantly repudiates the charge and 
claims him as strictly orthodox. Peta- 


The Church needed a long education, before she was fitted 
to be the expositor of the true Apostolic doctrine. A conflict 
of more than two centuries with Gnostics, Ebionites, Sabellians, 
Arians, supplied the necessary discipline. The true successors The Apo- 
of the Apostles in this respect are not the fathers of the second applied L 
century, but the fathers of the third and fourth centuries. In the ^^^^' ^^^^' 
expositors of the Nicene age we find indeed technical terms 
and systematic definitions, which we do not find in the Apostles 
themselves ; but, unless I have wholly misconceived the nature 
of the heretical teaching at Colossse and the purport of St Paul's 
reply, the main idea of Christ's Person, with which he here 
confronts this Gnostic Judaism, is essentially the same as that 
which the fathers of these later centuries opposed to the Sabel- 
lianism and the Arianism of their own age. If I mistake not, 
the more distinctly we realise the nature of the heresy, the 
more evident will it become that any conception short of the 
perfect deity and perfect humanity of Christ would not have 
furnished a satisfactory answer; and this is the reason why 
I have dwelt at such length on the character of the Colossian 
false teaching, and why I venture to call especial attention to 
this part of my subject. 

Of the style of the letter to the Colossians I shall have occa- Style of 
sion to speak hereafter, when I come to discuss its genuine- epistle, 
ness. It is sufficient to say here, that while the hand of St Paul 
is unmistakeable throughout this epistle, we miss the flow and 
the versatility of the Apostle's earlier letters. 

A comparison with the Epistles to the Corinthians and to the 
Philippians will show the difference. It is distinguished from Its rug- 
them by a certain ruggedness of expression, a ' want of finish ' and^com- 
often bordering on obscurity. "What account should be given of P^®^^^^"' 
this characteristic, it is impossible to say. The divergence of 

vius indeed approaches the subject nevertheless Justin's language is occa- 

from the point of view of later Western sionally such as no Athanasian could 

theology and, unable to appreciate have used. The treatment of this 

Justin's doctrine of the Logos, does father by Domer {Lehre i. p. 414 sq.) 

less than justice to this father; but is just and avoids both extremes. 


style is not greater than will appear in the letters of any active- 
minded man, written at different times and under different 
circumstances. The epistles which I have selected for contrast 
suggest that the absence of all personal connexion with the 
Colossian Church will partially, if not wholly, explain the dimi- 
nished fluency of this letter. At the same time no epistle of 
but essen- St Paul is more vigorous in conception or more instinct with 
■ meaning. It is the very compression of the thoughts which 
creates the difficulty. If there is a want of fluency, there is no 
want of force. Feebleness is the last charge which can be 
brought against this epistle. 

Analysis. The following is an analysis of the epistle : 

I. Introductory (i. i — 13). 

(i) i. I, 2. Opening sahitation. 

(2) i. 3 — 8. Thanksgiving for the progress of the Colossians 

{3) i. 9 — 13. Prayer for their future advance in knowledge and 

well-doing through Christ. 
[This leads the Apostle to speak of Christ as the 

only path of progress.] 

II. Doctrinal (i. 13 — ii. 3). 

The Person and Office of Christ. 

(t) i. 13, 14. Through the Son we have our deliverance, our 

(2) i. 15 — 19. The Preeminence of the Son ; 

(i) As the Head of the natural Creation, the Universe 

(i- 15—17); 
(ii) As the Head of the new moral Creation, the 

Church (i. 18). 
Thus He is first in all things ; and this, because the pleroma 

has its abode in Him (i. 19). 

(3) i. 20 — ii. 3. The Work of the Son — a work of recon- 

ciliation ; 
(i) Desciibed generally (i. 20). 
(ii) Applied specially to the Colossians (i. 21 — 23). 


(iii) St Paul's own part in carrying out this work. His Analysis, 
sufferings and preaching. The ' mystery ' with which 
he is charged (i. 24 — 27). 
His anxiety on behalf of all (i. 28, 29) : and more 
especially of the Colossian and neighbouring Churches 

(ii- 1—3)- 
[This expression of anxiety leads him by a direct path 
to the next division of the epistle.] 

III. Polemical (ii. 4 — iii. 4). 

Warning against errors. 

(i) ii. 4 — 8. The Colossians charged to abide in the truth 
of the Gospel as they receired it at first, and not to be 
led astray by a strange philosophy which the new teachers 

(2) ii. 9 — 15. The truth stated first positively and then 

[In the passage which follows (ii. 9 — 23) it will be ob- 
served how St Paul vibrates between the theological 
and practical beai'ings of the truth, marked a, /?, re- 
(i) Positively. 

(a) The iTlerortia dwells wholly in Christ and is com- 
municated through Him (ii. 9, 10). 
(^) The true circumcision is a spiritual circumcision 
(ii. II, 12). 
(ii) Negatively. Christ has 

(y8) annulled the law of ordinances (ii 14) ; 
(a) triumphed over all spiritual agencies, however power- 
ful (ii. 15). 

(3) iL 16 — iii. 4. ObKgations following thereupon. 

(i) Consequently the Colossians must not 

(^) either submit to ritual prohibitions (ii. 16, 17), 
(a) or substitute the worship of inferior beings for 
allegiance to the Head (ii. 1 8, 1 9). 
(ii) On the contrary this must henceforth be their 
rule : 


Analysis. I. They have died with Christ; and with Him they 

have died to their old life, to earthly ordinances (ii- 
2. They have risen with Christ ; and with Him they 
have risen to a new life, to heavenly principles (iii. 

IV. Hortatory (iii. 5 — iv. 6). 

Practical application of this death and this resurrection, 
(i) iii 5 — 17. Comprehensive rules. 

(i) What vices are to be put off, being mortified in this 

death (ui. 5 — 11). 
(ii) What graces are to be put on, being quickened 
through this resurrection (iii. 12 — 17). 
(2) iii. 18 — iv. 6. AS/jeciaZ precepts, 
(a) The obligations 

Of wives and husbands (iiL 18, 19); 
Of children and parents (iLL 20, 21) ; 
Of slaves and masters (iii. 22 — iv. i). 
(h) The duty of prayer and thanksgiving ; with special 

intercession on the Apostle's behalf (iv. 2 — 4). 
(c) The duty of propriety in behavioiu' towards the 
vmconverted (iv. 5, 6). 

V. Personal (iv. 7 — iS). 

(i) iv. 7 — g. Explanations relating to the letter itself. 

(2) iv. 10 — 14. Salutations from divers persons. 

(3) iv. 15 — 17. Salutations to divers persons. A message 

relating to Laodicea. 

(4) iv. 18. Farewell. 




Iste vas electionis 
Vires omnes rationis 

Humance transgreditur : 
Super choros angelorum 
Raptus, cceli secretorum 

Doctrinis imhuitur. 

De hoc vase tarn fecundo. 
Tarn electa et tarn mundo, 

Tu nos, Christe, compiue; 
Nos de luto, nos de fwce, 
Tua sancta purga prece, 

Regno tuo statue. 


I I AYA02 ofVocTToAo? Xpio-Tov 'Irjcrov Bia deX^juaTO^ 
. -*- Qeov, Kai Ti/uLoOeo^ 6 ddeXcpo'S, '^toT<5 ev KoAocrcrars 

I, 2. 'Paul, an apostle of Christ 
Jesus by no personal merit but by 
God's gracious will alone, and Timothy, 
our brother in the faith, to the conse- 
crated people of God in Colossi, the 
brethren who are stedfast in their 
allegiance and faithful in Christ. May 
grace the well-spring of all mercies, and 
peace the crown of all blessings, be 
bestowed upon you from God our 

I. aTToa-Tokoi] On the exceptional 
omission of this title in some of St 
Paul's epistles see Phil. i. i. Though 
there is no reason for supposing that 
his authority was directly impugned 
in the Colossian Church, yet he inter- 
poses by virtue of his Apostolic com- 
mission and therefore uses his autho- 
ritative title. 

bia dekrjfiaroi Qeov'] As in I Cor. i. I, 

2 Cor. i. I, Ephes. i. i, 2 Tim. i. i. 
These passages show that the words 
cannot have a polemical bearing. If 
they had been directed against those 
who questioned his Apostleship, they 
would probably have taken a stronger 
form. The expression must therefore 
be regarded as a renunciation of all 
personal worth, and a declaration of 
God's unmerited gi-ace; comp. Rom. 

ix. 1 6 apa ovv ov tov dekoproi ov8e 
Tov rpexovTos dWa tov iKeavros Qeov. 
The same words 8ia deXi^fiaros Qeov are 
used in other connexions in Rom. xv. 
32, 2 Cor. viii. 5, where no polemical 
reference is possible. 

Tifiodeos] The name of this disciple 
is attached to the Apostle's own in 


the heading of the Philippian letter, 
which was probably vsritten at an 
earlier stage in his Roman captivity. 
It appears also in the same connexion 
in the Epistle to Philemon, but not in 
the Epistle to the Ephesians, though 
these two letters were contempora- 
neous with one another and with the 
Colossian letter. For an explanation 
of the omission, see the introduction 
to that epistle. 

In the Epistles to the Philippians 
and to Philemon the presence of Ti- 
mothy is forgotten at once (see Phil, 
i. i). In this epistle the plural is 
maintained throughout the thanks- 
giving (vv. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9), but after- 
wards dropped, when the Apostle be- 
gins to speak in his own person (i. 23, 
24), and so he continues to the end. 
The exceptions (i. 28, iv. 3) are rather 
apparent than real. 

6 aSeXcj&os] Timothy is again desig- 
nated simply 'the brother' in 2 Cor. 
i. I, Philem. i, but not in Heb. xiii. 23, 
where the right reading is rbv d8eX(f>6v 
rjixuiv. The same designation is used 
of Quartus (Rom. xvi. 23), of Sosthenes 
(i Cor. i. i), of Apollos (i Cor. xvi. 12) ; 
comp. 2 Cor. viii. 18, ix. 3, 5, xii. 18. 
As some designation seemed to be 
required, and as Timothy could not 
be called an Apostle (see Galatians, 
p. 96, note 2), this, as the simplest 
title, would naturally suggest itself. 

2. KoXoo-o-ats] For the reasons 
why this form is preferred here, while 
YioXaaaaels is adopted in the heading 
of the epistle, see above, p. 16 sq. 




Kcd eipf]Pt] aVo Qeov Trarpo^ ij/ULwv. 

2 Evx<^pi-Cf"TOviuL€v Tio 0ew [^Kai^ irarpl tov Kvpiov 

dyiois] 'sahitSy'i.o. the people con- 
secrated to God, the Israel of the new 
covenant; see the note on Phil. i. i. 
This mode of address marks the later 
epistles of St Paul. In his earlier 
letters (i, 2 Thess., i, 2 Cor., Gal.) he 

writes rfj iKKkrjaia, rals eKKXrjcrlais. The 

change begins with the Epistle to the 
Romans, and from that time forward 
the Apostle always uses dytois in 
various combinations in addressing 
churches (Rom., Phil, Col., Ephes.). 
For a similar phenomenon, serving as 
a chronological mark, see the note on 
77 x'^P'^i i^- ^S- T^® word dyiois must 
here be treated as a substantive in 
accordance with its usage in parallel 
passages, and not as an adjective con- 
nected with abeXcfiols. See the next 

Koi TTio-ToTf dSeX0oTs] This uimsual 
addition is full of meaning. Some 
members of the Colossian Church were 
shaken in their allegiance, even if they 
had not fallen from it. The Apostle 
therefore wishes it to be understood 
that, when he speaks of the saints, he 
means the true and stedfast members 
of the brotherhood. In this way he 
obliquely hints at the defection. Thus 
the words koX niarTols dSeX^ois are a 
supplementary explanation of vols d- 
yiois. He does not directly exclude 
any, but he indirectly warns all The 
epithet nia-ros cannot mean simply 
'believing'; for then it would add no- 
thing which is not already contained 
in dyiois and d8e\(f)ols. Its passive 
sense, ' trustworthy, stedfast, unswerv- 
ing,' must be prominent here, as in 
Acts xvi. 15 et KeKpUaTe ne iriarfjv rm 
Kvpi'w elvai. See Galatians p. 155. 

iv Xpto-Tw] Most naturally connected 
with both words Tna-rois dbekc^ois, 
though referring chiefly to Trtfrrots ; 
comp. Ephes. vi. 21 Trto-ros biaKovos iv 

Kvpico, I Tim. i. 2 yvrjcriw reKva iv iri- 
a-Tei. For the expression TrtoToy iv 
Xpio-rw, iv KvpLtp, see also i Cor. iv. 17, 
Ephes. i. I. The Apostle assumes 
that the Colossian brethren are ' sted- 
fast in Christ.' Their state thus con- 
trasts with the description of the he- 
retical teacher, who (ii. 19) ov Kparel 

TTjV K£(f)a\t]V. 

xdpi-s K.r.X.] On this form of saluta- 
tion see the note to i Thess. i. i. 

naTpos i]pa>v] The only instance in 
St Paul's epistles, where the name of 
the Father stands alone in the open- 
ing benediction without the addition 
of Jesus Christ. The omission was 
noticed by Origen {Rom. i. § 8, iv. p. 
467), and by Chrysostom {nd loc. xi. p. 
324, Horn, in 2 Cor. xxx,x.p.65i). But 
transcribers naturally aimed at uni- 
formity, and so in many copies we find 
the addition Ka\ Kvpiov 'irja-ov Xpicrrov. 

The only other exception to the Apo- 
stle's usual form is in i Thessalonians, 
where the benediction is shorter still, 
xdpis vfilv KoX (IpijvTj, and where like- 
wise the copyists have supplied words 
to lengthen it out in accordance with 
St Paul's common practice. 

3 — 8. 'We never cease to pour 
forth our thanksgiving to God the 
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ on 
your account, whensoever we pray to 
Him. We are full of thankfulness 
for the tidings of the fa ith which ye 
have in Christ Jesus, and the /o»e which 
ye show towards all the people of God, 
while ye look forward to the hope 
which is stored up for you in heaven 
as a treasure for the life to come. 
This hope was communicated to you 
in those earlier lessons, when the Gos- 
pel was preached to you in its purity 
and integrity — the one universal un- 
changeable Gospel, which was made 
known to you, even as it was carried 

I. 4, 5] 



ijiucov 'h](Tou XpLdTOv nravTore Trepl vjucov 7rpoa-6V)(^6fxevoL' 
^(XKOvcravTe^ Ty]v ttlcttiv v^cou ev Xpia-Tio 'Itjcov, kul t})v 

throughout the world, approving itself 
by its fruits wheresoever it is plant- 
ed. For, as elsewhere, so also in you, 
these fruits were manifested from the 
first day when ye received your lessons 
in, and apprehended the power of, the 
genuine Gospel, which is not a hxw of 
ordinances but a dispensation of grace, 
not a device of men but a truth of 
God. Such was the word preached to 
you by Epaphras, our beloved fellow- 
servant in our Master's household, 
who in our absence and on our behalf 
has ministered to you the Gospel of 
Christ, and who now brings back to us 
the welcome tidings of the love which 
ye show in the Spirit.' 

3. Evxapi.(TTovfjLev2 See the notes on 
I Thess. i. 2. 

narpi] If the Kal be omitted, as the 
balance of authorities appears to sug- 
gest, the form of words here is quite 
exceptional. Elsewhere it runs o Qeos 
/cat Trarrjp tov Kvpiov, Rom. XV. 6, 2 Cor. 
i. 3, xi. 31, Ephes. i. 3 (v. 1.), i Pet. i. 
3 ; comp. Rev. i. 6 : and in analogous 
cases, such as 6 Qeos koI Trarrjp i]p.civ, 
the rule is the same. See the note on 
Clem. Horn. § 7. In iii. 17 however 
we have rw Gtw Trarpi, where the evi- 
dence is more decisive and the ex- 
pression quite as unusual On the 
authorities for the various readings 
here see the detached note. 

navTOTe k.t.X.] We here meet the 
same difficulty about the connexion of 
the clauses, which confronts us in 
several of St Paul's opening thanks- 
givings. The words TravTore and Trepl 
vfjLcii/ must clearly be taken together, 
because the emphasis of nepl vfiav 
would be inexplicable, if it stood at 
the beginning of a clause. But are 
they to be attached to the precedingor 
to the following sentence? The con- 
nexion with the previous words is fa- 

voured by St Paul's usual conjunction 
of evxapiCTTelv iravTore (see the note on 
Phil. i. 3), and by the parallel passage 
ov Tvavofiai, €i;;^apicrr<ui/ virep vp,a>v in 
Ephes. i. 16. Thus the words will 
mean ' J^Ve give Uianksfor you always 
in our prayers} For this absolute 
use of TTpoa-evxofievot see Matt. vi. 7, 
Acts xvi. 25. 

4. uKoiiaauTfi] 'having heard' from 
Epaphras (ver. 8) ; for the Apostle had 
no direct personal knowledge of the 
Colossian Church : see the introduc- 
tion, p. 27 sq. 

eV Xptcrrw 'irjcrov] To be connected 
with rfiv nicTTw vp.a>v. The strict clas- 
sical language would require rr]v ip 
X. 'I., but the omission of the article is 
common in the New Testament (e. g. 
ver. 8) ; see the note on i Thess. i. i , 
and Winer § xx. p. 169 (ed. Moulton). 
The preposition iv here and in the pa- 
rallel passage, Ephes. i. 15, denotes the 
sphere in which their faith moves, 
rather than the object to which it is 
directed (comp. i Cor. iii. 5); for, if 
the object had been meant, the na- 
tural preposition would have been eVl 
or ei$ (e. g. ii. 5). This is probably the 
case also in the passages where at 
first sight it might seem otherwise, 
e.g. I Tim. iii. 13, 2 Tim. iii, 15; for 
compare 2 Tim. i. 13 iv TnVret ica\ 
dyawrj rrj iv Xpiara 'irjaov, where the 
meaning is unambiguous. There is 
however authority in the Lxx for the 
use of iv yfiih nia-Tis, mcrTeveiv, to de- 
note the object, in Jer. xii. 6, Ps. 
Ixxviii. 22, and perhaps in Mark i. 15, 
Rom. iii. 25, and (more doubtfully still) 
in Joh. iii. 15. 

^v exere] See the detached note on 
the various readings. 

5. 8ia rfiv eXn-iSa] 'for the hope,' i.e. 
looking to the hope. The following 
reasons seem decisive in favour of con- 



e\7ri^a t^v d7roKeifxevy]V v/uuv iu Toh ovpavoT^j r]V Trpot]- 
KOvoraTe ev tm Xoyw r^s d\t]6eia9 tov evayyeXiov, ^tov 
TrapovTO^ et9 iJ/ua?, Kadco^ Kai ev iravri rw KOO'Hcd ecTTiv 

necting Sia ttjv iKniba, not witll euxa- 

pi(TTOVfl€V, but with TrjV TTLCTTtV K.T.X., 

whether ^v exere be retained or not. 
(i) The great distance of euxaptcroC- 
fiev is against the former connexion; 
(2) The following clause, ^v TrporjKov- 
a-are k.tX, suggests that the words 
8ia TTjv fXmBa describe the motives of 
the Colossiaus for well-doing, rather 
than the reasons of the Apostle for 
thanksgiving: (3) The triad of Chris- 
tian graces, which St Paul dehghts to 
associate together, would otherwise be 
broken up. This last argument seems 
conclusive; see especially the corre- 
sponding thanksgiving in i Thess. i. 3, 
fivrjfxovevovres vy.o)v rov fpyov rrjs tti- 
arecos koX rov kottov Trjs dyaTrrjs Koi 
TTJs inrofiovrjs rfjs eXTridos k.t.X,, with 
the note there. The order is the same 
here, as there; and it is the natural 
sequence. Faith rests on the past; 
love works in the present; hope looks 
to the future. They may be regard- 
ed as the eflScient, material, and 
final causes respectively of the spiri- 
tual life. Compare Polycarp Phil. 3 
irioTiv ^Tis earl fJi-ijTTjp Travrcov ijfiav, 
eTraKoKovdovcrrjs t^s eXiriBos, Tvpoayovarjs 
TTJs dydnrji. 

The hope here is identified with the 
object of the hope: see the passages 
quoted on Gal. v. 5. The sense of 
iXiTis, as of the corresponding words 
in any language, oscillates between the 
subjective feeling and the objective 
realisation ; comp. Rom. viii. 24 rfj 

yap eXTTi'Si eacodrjfiev eXnls Se /3Xf7ro- 
fi€VT] ovK ecTTiv iXnis' yap /3XeVet ris 
K.T.X., where it passes abruptly fi'oni 
the one to the other. 

Trjv aTroKeineinjv] 'which is stored 
up.' It is the drjaavpbs iv ovpava of 

the Gospels (Matt. vi. 20, 21, Luke sii. 
34, xviii. 22). 
TTpoijKovo-aTe] ' of which ye were 

told in time past.' The preposition 
seems intended to contrast their 
earlier with their later lessons — the 
true Gospel of Epaphras with the false 
gospel of their recent teacher.^ (see 
the next note). The expression would 
gain force, if we might suppose that 
the heretical teachers obscured or 
perverted the doctrine of the resur- 
rection (comp. 2 Tim. ii. 18) ; and their 
speculative tenets were not unUkely 
to lead to such a result. But this is 
not necessary ; for imder any circum- 
stances the false doctrine, as leading 
them astray, tended to cheat them of 
their hope; see ver. 23. The common 
interpretations, which explain Trpo- as 
meaning either 'before its fulfilment' 
or 'before my writing to you,' seem 
neither so natural in themselves nor 
so appropriate to the context. 

Trjs dXijdfias rov evayyeXiov] ' the 

truth of the Gospel,' i.e. the tnie and 
genuine Gospel as taught by Epaphras, 
and not the spurious substitute of 
these later pretenders : comp. ver. 6 
(V dXTjdela. See also Gal. ii. 5, 14, 
where a similar contrast is irapHed in 

the use of ?/ aXrjdeia rov evayytXlov. 

6. Tov napovTos fls vfias] ' which 
reached you.' The expression Trapet- 
vat fir is not imcommon in classical 
writers ; comp. nape'ivai Ttpos in Acts 
xii. 20, Gal. iv. 18, 20. So also ei5p«- 

OrjvaL (Is (Acts viii. 40), yevetrdai els 

(e.g. Acts XXV. 15), and even elvai 
els (Luke xi. 7). See Winer § 1. p. 

€v TravTi rw Kocrfxm] For a similar 
hyperbole see Rom. i. 8 ev oXa ra 
Koa-fico ; comp. i Thess. i. 8, 2 Cor. ii. 14, 
iv iravTi. tottco. More lurks under these 
words than appears on the surface. The 
true Gospel, the Apostle seems to say, 
proclaims its truth by its universality. 
The false gospels are the outgrowths 




Kap7ro(popovfJievov kui av^avofxevov, Kudoo'S kul eV vfjiiv, 
d(p' 17s rifxepa^ T^KOvcraTe Kai eireyvoiTe t^v X«j0fi/ tov 

of local circumstances, of special idio- 
syncrasies; the true Gospel is the 
same everywhere. The false gospels 
address themselves to limited circles ; 
the true Gospel proclaims itself boldly 
throughout the world- Heresies are 
at best ethnic : truth is essentially 

catholic. See ver. 23 fir] ixeraKivnifievoi 
ano TTJs eXnlBos tov evayyeXlov ov 
^Kovaare, tov KrjpvxQivTos iv iraarj 
KTiaei TTj vTTo TOV ovpovov. 

eVrii/ KapTTotfiopovnevov] ' is constantly 
bearing fruit.' The fruit, which the 
Gospel bears without fail in all soils 
and under evei'y chmate, is its cre- 
dential, its verification, as against the 
pretensions of spurious counterfeits. 
The substantive vei-b should here be 
taken with the participle, so as to 
express continuity of present action ; 
as in 2 Cor. ix. 12 oi) ^ovov i(TT\v ivpoaa- 
varfkrfpovaa K.r.X., Phil. ii. 26 eniiTodatv 
Tjv. It is less common in St Paul 
than in some of the Canonical writers, 
e.g. St Mark and St Luke; but pro- 
bably only because he deals less in 

Of the middle Kap7ro0opeto-^at no 
other instance has been found. The 
voice is partially illustrated by Kutha- 

vocpopelcrdat, ai8r]po(f)ope1a6ai, TV/xna- 

vo(pppeiadai, though, as involving a 
different sense of -(^opficrBat. ' to wear,' 
these words are not exact parallels. 
Here the use of the middle is the 
more marked, inasmuch as the active 
occurs just below (ver. 10) in the 
same connexion, Kapno(j)opovvTes koI 
av^av6p.evoi. This fact however points 
to the force of the word here. The 
middle is intensive, the active exten- 
sive. The middle denotes the inherent 
energy, the active the external diffu- 
sion. The Gospel is essentially a re- 
productive organism, a plant whose 
'seed is in itself.' For this 'dynamic' 
middle see Moulton's note on Winer 
§ xxxviii. p. 319. 

Kai av^avoixfuov] The Gospel IS not 
like those plants which exhaust them- 
selves in bearing fruit and wither 
away. The external growth keeps 
pace with the reproductive energy. 
While Kapnocpopovpevov describes the 
inner working, av^avopevov gives the 
outward extension of the Gospel. The 
words Kol av^avopevov are not found 
in the received text, but the autho- 
rity in their favour is overwhelming. 

Kadcos Koi ip vpTiv] The comparison 
is thus doubled back, as it were, on 
itself. This irregularity disappears in 
the received text, koX eariv KupTro(j)o- 
povp.£vov Kadas Koi iv vplv, where the 
insertion of koI before Kapnocf)opovpe- 
vov straightens the construction. For 
a similar irregularity see i Thess. iv. 
I irapaKaXovpev iv Kvpia ^Irjcrov iva, 
Kadms 7rapfXa/3ere wap' i]pav to ttws del 
vpas TrepmaTelv koi apicmeiv 0ea), Ka6a>s 
Koi TV e piTV or e'lTf, iva irepKTcrevTjTe paXKov, 
where again the received text simpli- 
fies the construction, though in a dif- 
ferent way, by omitting the first iva 
and the words Kadm Ka\ TrepiTraretre. 
In both cases the explanation of the 
irregularity is much the same ; the 
clause reciprocating the comparison 
(here icadats Ka\ €v vplvy there Kadas 
Ka\ TrepiTrareiTf) is an afterthought 
springing out of the Apostle's anxiety 
not to withhold praise where praise 
can be given. 

For the appearance of Ka\ in both 
members of the comparison, Ka\ iv 
Trawt Tw K6(rp<o.,.Ka6b3s Kai, comp. 
Rom. i. 13 Kai iv vplv Kadas koi iv Toh 
XotTTois edvecnv ; and in the reversed 
order below, iii. 13 Kadas Kai 6 Kvpios 
ixapio'aTO vptv, ovtcos Kai vpfls (with 
the note) : see also Winer liii. p. 549 
(ed. Moulton). The correlation of the 
clauses is thus rendered closer, and 
the comparison emphasized. 

■qKOva-aTe Kai iiTeyvcoTe] The accusa- 
tive is governed by both verbs equally, 



[I. 7, 8 

Geov kv ciXijOeia, "^Kadcos ejudOeTe (xtto 'E7ra(ppd tov 
dyaTTtjTOv crvvhovXou r]fjiwv, o<s ecrrtv ttictto^ virep rifxiov 
diaKovos TOV XpLCTOu, ^6 Kai dtiXcocra's rifjiiv Trjv vjudov 
dyaTrriv eV irvevfiaTL. 

'Ye were instructed in and fully ap- 
prehended the grace of God.' For 
this sense of aKoveiv see below, ver. 
23. For iiTiyivdxTKeiv as denoting 'ad- 
vanced knowledge, thorough apprecia- 
tion,' see' the note on eniyvaais, ver. 9. 
rfiv x'^P'-^ '■o^ GeoO] St Paul's syno- 
nyme for the Gospel. lu Acts xx. 24 
he describes it as his mission to preach 

TO evayyfkiov Trjs x"P^'''os tov Qeov. 

The true Gospel as taught by Epa- 
plinis was an offer of free grace, a 
message from God ; the false gospel, 
as superposed by the heretical teach- 
ers, was a code of rigorous prohibitions, 
a system of human devising. It was 
not x«/^'$' but 8oy jxaTa (ii. 14) ; not tov 
Qeoi) but tov icoafiov, twv dvdpuTrcov (ii. 
8, 20, 22). For God's power and good- 
ness it substituted self-mortification 
and self-exaltation. The Gospel is 
called r) xap'f fov Qeov again in 2 Cor. 
vi. I, viii. 9, with reference to the same 
leading characteristic which the Apo- 
stle delights to dwell upon (e.g. Rom. 
iii. 24, V. 15, Eph. ii. 5, 8), and which 
he here tacitly contrasts with the doc- 
trine of the later intruders. The false 
teachers of Colossne, like those of Ga- 
latia, would lead their hearers adeTelu 
TTjv x'tptf TOV Qeov (GaL ii. 21) ; to ac- 
cept their doctrine was eWtTrretz/ r^v 
XapiTos (Gal. V. 4). 

(V d}^rj6ela] i.e. 'in its genuine sim- 
plicity, without adulteration' : see the 
note on 7-17^ dXijOflas tov fvayy(\iov, 
ver. 5. 

7. KaBas e^iadeTe] 'even as ye were 
instructed in it,' the clause being an 
exijlauation of the preceding iv d\r)- 
deig i comp. ii. 7 Kadas edibdxdrjTe. 
On the insertion of /cat before e^d- 
6(rt in the received text, and the con- 
sequent obscuration of the sense, see 
above, p. 29 sq. The insertion how- 

ever was very natural, inasmuch as 
Kadujs Kai is an ordinary collocation 
of particles and has occurred twice in 
the preceding verse. 

'EnacPfia] On the notices of Epaphras, 
and on his work as the evangelist 
of the Colossians see above, p. 29 sq., 
p. 34 sq., and the note on iv. 12. 

(Tvi'Soi'Xov] See iv. 7. The word does 
not occur elsewhere in St Paul. 

vnep tJ/xcoi/] As the evangelist of 
Colossse, Epaphras had represented 
St Paul there and preached in his 
stead ; see above, p. 30. The other 
reading vnep vfioiv might be interpret- 
ed in two ways: either (i) It miglit 
describe tlie personal ministrations of 
Epaphras to St Paul as the represen- 
tative of the Colossians (see a similar 
case in Phil. ii. 25, iv. 18}, and so it 
might be compared with Philem. 13 
Iva vTTep (TOV fioi 8iaKoi>rj ; but this in- 
terpretation is hardly consistent with 
Toil XpiaTov. Or (2) It might refer to 
the preaching of Epaphras for the 
good of the Colossians ; but the na- 
tural construction in this case would 
hardly be virep v/xc5i/ (of which there is 
no direct example), but either v/iwf 
(Rom. XV. 8) or vjilv (i Pet. i. 12). 
The balance of external authority 
however is against it. Partly by 
the accidental interchange of similar 
sounds, partly by the recurrence of 
vnep vjxwv in the context (vv. 3, 9), and 
partly also from ignorance of the his- 
torical circumstances, v^<ov would read- 
ily be substituted for ruiatv. See the 
detached note on various readings. 

8. o KOLi S?jXwo-as] ' As he preached 
to you from us, so also he brought 
back to us from you the tidings, etc' 
ev TTViiniaTi] To be connected with 
Tr]v vfiav dydiTr]v. ' The fruit of the 
Spirit is love,' Gal. v. 22. For the 


^ Aid TOVTO Kui nfJ^eh, d<p' >/s rifj.epa's ^Kovaaj^ev, ov 
Travoixeda VTrep u/mayv 7rpocr6V)(^6iuLevoL Kai airovfievoi \va 
7r\t]pco6f]T6 TYiv eTTLyvoxTiv Tou deXi^juctTO^ avTou ev 

omission of the article, T^r iv nvivfiari, 
see the note on ver. 4. 

9 — 14. ' Hearing then that ye thus 
abound iu works of faith and love, 
we on our part have not ceased, from 
the day when we received the happy 
tidings, to pray on your behalf. And 
this is the purport of our petitions ; 
that ye may grow more and more in 
knowledge, till ye attain to the perfect 
understanding of God's will, being en- 
dowed with all wisdom to apprehend 
His verities and all intelligence to 
follow His processes, living in the 
mind of the Spirit — to the end that 
knowledge may manifest itself in 
practice, that your conduct in life may 
be worthy of yom' profession in tho 
Lord, so as in all ways to win for you 
the gracious favour of God your King. 
Thus, while ye bear fruit in every 
good work, ye will also grow as the 
tree grows, being watered and re- 
freshed by this knowledge, as by the 
dew of heaven : thus ye will be 
strengthened in all strength, according 
to that power which centres in and 
spreads from His glorious manifesta- 
tion of Himself, and nerved to all 
endurance under affliction and all 
long-suffering under provocation, not 
only without complaining, but even 
with joy : thus finally (for this is the 
crown of all), so rejoicing ye will pour 
forth your thanksgiving to the Uni- 
versal Father, who prepared and fitted 
us all— you and us alike — to take pos- 
session of the portion which His good- 
ness has allotted to us among the 
saints in the kingdom of light. Yea, 
by a strong arm He rescued us from 
the lawless tyranny of Darkness, re- 
moved us from the land of our bond- 
age, and settled us as free citizens in 
our new and glorious home, where His 
Son, the ofl'spring and the representa- 

tive of His love, is King ; even the 
same, who paid our ransom and thus 
procured our redemption from cap- 
tivity — our redemption, which (be 
assured) is nothing else than the re- 
mission of our sins.' 

9. Aia TovTo] ''for 1,1m cause,' i. e. 
'by reason of your progressive faith 
and love,' referring not solely to 6 Ka\ 
8rf\(6aas k.t.X. but to tho whole of 
the preceding description. For 8ia 
TOVTO ml j)/ifis in an exactly similar 
connexion, see i Thess. ii. 13; corap. 

Ephes. i. 15 Sta tovto Kuyco /c.t.X. In 

all these cases the Kal denotes the 
response of the Apostle's personal 
feeling to the favourable character 
of the news; 'we on our part.' This 
idea of correspondence is still fui'ther 
emphasized by the repetition of the 

same words : koi iv Vjxiv a0' iy? i^fXfpas 
T]KOV(TaT€ (ver. 6), koi T^fMets dcf)' 7]s jf/xe- 
pas ^KoiKTajiev (ver. 9). 

Koi aiTovfiepoi] The words have an 
exact parallel in Mark xi. 24 (as cor- 
rectly read) navTa oaa Trpocrevxfcdf 
KOI alTflcrde. 

iva] With words like 7rpoo-evxfo-^«'> 
(ilTe7o-6ai, etc., the earUer and stronger 
force of Iva, implying design, glides 
impercei^tibly into its later and weaker 
use, signifying merely purport or re- 
sult, so that the two are hardly sepa- 
rable, imlcss one or other is directly 
indicated by something in the con- 
text. See the notes on Phil. i. 9, and 
comp. Winer § xliv. p. 420 sq. 

rrjv eniyvcocriv] Aftivourite wordin the 
later epistles of St Paul ; see the note 
on Phil. i. 9. In all the four epistles 
of the first Roman captivity it is an 
elementin the Apostle's openingprayer 
for his correspondents' well-being ( Phil, 
i. 9, Ephes. i. 17, Philem. 6, and here). 
The greater stress which is thus laid on 
the contemplative aspects of the Gospel 



[I. 10 

7rd(rt] (ro(pia Kal (rvvecei TrveviuaTiKfj, ^^irepnrarriG-ai 
d^io)^ Tov Kvpiov eU Tracrav dpeaKeiav ev ttuvti epyco 

may be explained partly by St Paul's 
personal circumstances, partly by the 
requirements of the Church. His en- 
forced retirement and comparative 
leisure would lead his own thoughts 
in this direction, while at the same 
time the fi-esh dangers thi-eatening the 
truth from the side of mystic specu- 
lation required to be confronted by 
an exposition of the Gospel from a 
con-esponding point of view. 

The compound eniyvatais is an ad- 
vance upon yvaxTis, denoting a larger 
and more thorough knowledge. So 

ChrysOStom here, eyvcore, uWa Sei n 
Ka\ eiriyvcovai. Comp. Justin Mart. 
Dial. 3, p. 221 A, 1] TTopexovcra avrav 
TC£>v avOpaiv'wav <a\ Tav deicov yvcci(riv, 
eireira ttjs tovtcov deiorrjTos Koi biKaio- 
(Tvvrjs (TTiyviiXTLV. So too St Paul 
himself contrasts-yii/oSa-Keii/jyj/coa-tr, with 
einyivaxTKeiv, eniyvaa-is, as the par- 
tial with the complete, in two pas- 
sages, Rom. i. 21, 28, I Cor. xiii. 12. 
With this last passage {apTi yivcoa-Km 
eK fiepovs, Tore Se imyvaaoiiai) com- 
pare Clem. Alex. Strom, i. 1 7, p. 369, 
irapa rav 'E/3pat/cc5z/ 7rpo(f>r]TSv nepr) 
Tiji dXrjdelas ov kot eiriyvacriv \a- 
^oj/Tfy, wliere kut iTrlyvatcnv is com- 
monly but wrongly translated 'without 
proper I'ccognition' (comp. Tatian ad 
Grax. 40). Hence also fTrlyvaia-is is 
used especially of the knowledge of 
God and of Christ, as being the per- 
fection of knowledge : e. g. Prov. ii. 5, 
Hos. iv. I, vi. 6, Ephes. i. 17? iv. 13. 
2 Pet. i. 2, 8, ii. 20, Clem. Alex. Pwd. 
ii. I, p. 173- 

(To(i>'ia Ka\ avvfcrfi] 'wisdom and in- 
telligeyice.' The two words are fre- 
quently found together: e.g. Exod. 
xxxi. 3, Deut. iv. 6, i Chvon. xxii. 12, 
2 Chrou. i. 10 sq., Is. xi. 2, xxix. 14, 
Dan. ii. 20, Baruch iii. 23, i Cor. i. 19, 
Clem. Rom. 32. So too aocpoi koi 
avveroi, Prov. xvi. 21, Matt. xi. 25, 
and elsewhere. In the parallel pas- 

sage, Eph. i. 8, the words are ev ttootj 
cro0t'a Kal (jjpovqa-ei, and the substitu- 
tion of (pp6vT}(Tis for avfeais there is 
instructive. The three words are 
mentioned together, Arist. Eih. Nic. 
i. 13, as constituting the intellectual 
{8iavor]TiKa\) virtues. 2o0ia is mental 
excellence in its highest and fullest 
sense ; Arist. Eth. Nic. vi, 7 7 axpt- 
^fCTciTT] Twv i7n<TTT]nwv...coa'irep Ke(f)a- 
Xrjv e^ovaa eVtoTJ/ftJ; rav Tip-KOTaTav 

(see Waitz on Arist. Organ. 11. p. 295 
sq.), Cicero de Of. i. 43 ' princeps om- 
nium virtutum,' Clem. Alex. Peed. ii. 2, 
p. lSl,Tf\f ia...€p.w€pi\a^ov(ra ra oXa, 
The Stoic definition of ao<i>'ia, as eVt- 
(TTTJfxT) de'ioDV KaX avOpatTTivav Koi ru>v 
TovTav aiTiav, is repeated by various 
writers: e.g. Cic. de Off. ii. 5, Philo 
Congr. erud.grat. 14, p. 530, [Joseph.] 
Mace. 2, Clem. Alex. Peed. ii. 2, p. 181, 
Strom, i. 5, p. 333, Ox'ig. c. Cels. iii. 72, 
Aristob. in Eus. Prcep. Ev. xiii. 12, 
p. 667. And the glorification of o-o^t'a 
by heathen Avriters was even sur- 
passed by its apotheosis in the Pro- 
verbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon. 
While (lochia Svisdom' is thus primary 
and absolute {Eth. Nic. vi. 7 /117 fiovov 
TO. eK Tcov dpx^" eldevai dXka koi nep\ 
Tcis dp\as aXi]6eveiv), both avufcns 'in- 
telligence' and ((>p6vT](Tis 'pi-udence' 
ai*e derivative and special {Eth. Nic 
vi. 12 Tav iaxcifotv koi twv kuO' eKaarov). 
They are both applications of (ro(f>ia 
to details, but they work on different 
lines ; for, while crvvecris is critical, 
(pp6vi](ris is practical ; while a-vvea-is 
apprehends the bearings of things, 
(f)p6v7](ns suggests lines of action : see 
Arist. Eth. Nic. vi. 1 1 ^ fiev yap <^po- 
VTjiris eniTaKTiKr] idTiv ..r) 8e avve- 
o-is KpiriKT). For avveais see 2 Tim. 
ii. 7 voei o Xe-yw, Swcret yap croi 6 Ku- 
pios (TvvecTLV iv Tracnv. This relation 
of ao^ia to <Tvve(Tis explains why in 
almost every case croclila {<ro({)6s) pre- 
cedes a-vveais {avveros), where they 

I. II] 



dyaSM Kap7ro(popovvT€'s kul av^avo/mevoi Trj eTnyi/cSo'et 
Tov Qeou' "ei/ Tract] ^vvafxei ZvvafjLOVfj.evoL Kara to 

are found together, and also why in 
Baruch iii. 23 oi iK^rjTTjTal ttjs (rvve- 
(retos, oSof 8e trocfiias ovic eyvwaav, we 
find trvvea-Ls implying a tentative, par- 
tial, approach to crocpia. The relation 
of a-o0ia to (j)p6vr}(ns will be considered 
more at length in the note on the 
parallel passage, Ephes. i. 8, 

TTveviiaTiKTj] The word is emphatic 
from its position. The false teachers 
also ofiered a aocjjia, but it had only 
a show of wisdom (ii. 23) ; it was an 
empty counterfeit calling itself philo- 
sophy i^ii. 8); it was the offspring of 
vanity nurtured by the mind of the Jlesh 
(ii. 18). See 2 Cor. i. 12 ovk iv a-o(f)ia 
a-apKiKTj, where a similar contrast is 
implied, and i Coi-. i. 20, ii. 5, 6, 13, 
iii. 19, where it is directly expressed 
by cro(^ia TOV Koa/Mov, crocpia dvdpcoTrcov, 
(Tocj)ia TOV alavos tovtov, dvdpanrlvTi ao- 
(f)ia, etc. 

10. TTepiTraTTJcrai, d^ias K.r.X.] So I 
Thess. ii. 12, Ephes. iv. i ; comp. Phil, 
i. 27. The infinitive here denotes the 
consequence (not necessarily the pur- 
pose) of the spiritual enlightenment 
described in ha TrXijpad^Te k.t.X. ; see 
Winer § sliv. p. 399 sq. With the 
received text nepLrraTTJa-ai vpas d^icos 
<c.r.X. the connexion might be doubtful ; 
but this reading is condemned by ex- 
ternal evidence. The emphasis of the 
sentence would be marred by the inser- 
tion of vpas. The end of all knowledge, 
the Apostle would say, is conduct. 

TOV Kvpiov] i. e. 'of Christ.' In i 
Thess. ii. 12 indeed we have iripma- 
Tfiv d^icos TOV Ofov ; but St Paul's com- 
mon, and apparently universal, usage 
requires us to understand 6 Kvpios of 

dpea-Keiav} i.e. 'to please God in all 
ways'; comp. i Thess iv. i iras 8fl 
vpds TTfpiTraTeiv Koi dpecTKeiv Qem. As 
this word was commonly used to de- 
scribe the proper attitude of men to- 
wards God, the addition of tov Qeov 

would not be necessary: Philo Quis 
rer. div. her. 24 (i. p. 490) as dirobe- 
Xopevov {tov Qeov) ras yl/'vx^fjs eKovcriov 
dpea-Keias, de Aorah. 25 (11. p. 20) 
Tas Tvpos dpeaKeiav oppds, de Vict. Off. 
8 (11. p. 257) 8ta TTacrav Uvai t&v els 
dpea-Ksiav 68av, with other passages 
quoted by Loesner. Otherwise it is 
used especially of ingratiating oneself 
with a sovereign or potentate, e.g. 
Polyb. vi. 2. 12; and perhaps in the 
higher connexion, in which it occm-s 
in the text, the idea of a king is still 
prominent, as e.g. Philo de Mund. 
Op. 50 (l. p. 34) ndvTa Koi Xeyeiv koI 
npaTTfiv eaTTovda^ev els dpeaKfiav tov 
TruTpbi Koi j3a(Ti\ems. Towards men 
this complaisance is always dangerous 
and most commonly vicious; hence 
dpea-Kfia is a bad quality in Aristotle 
[?] {Eth. Eud. ii. 3 to Xlav nphs fjbovrjv) 
as also in Theophrastus {Char. 5 ovk 
em Tw j3e\Tia-Ta i]8oiifjs irapaaKevacrTi- 
Krj), but towards the King of kings no 
obsequiousness can be excessive. The 
dpea-Keia of Aristotle and Theophrastus 
presents the same moral contrast to 
the dpea-Keia here, as dvOpanron dpe- 
aKeiv to Qea dpeaKeiv in SUCh passages 
as I Thess. ii. 4, Gal. i. 10. Oppo.sed 
to the dpea-Keia commended here is dv- 
dpanapea-Keia condemned below, iii. 22. 

eV ttuvtI k.tA.] i.e. 'not only showing 
the fruits of your faith before men 
(Matt. vii. 16), but yourselves growing 
meanwhile in moral stature (Eph.iv. 13).' 

TTJ eTriyvaaei] 'by the knowledge.' 
The other readings, ev t^ etviyvaaei, 
els TTjv eiriyvaxTiv, are unsuccessful 
attempts to define the construction. 
The simple instrumental dative re- 
presents the knowledge of God as the 
dew or the rain which nurtures the 
growth of the plant; Deut. xxxii, 2, 
Hos. xiv. 5. 

II. bwapLovpevoi] A word found 
more than once in the Greek versions 
of the Old Testament, Ps. Lxvii (Ixviii). 

I -.8 


[I. 12 

Koaro^ Trjs ^o^rj^ avTOV ek iracrav vTrojuovrju kcii fxaKpo- 

12. ry iKavwcravTi i/fxas. 

29 (lxx), Eccles. X. 10 (lxx), Dan. ix. 
27 (Theod.), Ps. Ixiv (Ixv). 4 (Aq.), Job 
xxxvi. 9 (Aq.), but not occurring else- 
where in the New Testament, except 
in Heb. xi. 34 and as a vai'ious read- 
ing in Ephes. vi. 10. The compound 
hbvva^ovv however appears several 
times in St Paul and elsewhere. 

Kara to Kparos] The power commu- 
nicated to the faithful corresponds to, 
and is a function of, the Divine might 
whence it comes. Unhke dvvaixis or 
Itrxvs, the word Kparos in the New 
Testament is applied solely to God. 

T^s 86$r]i avTov] The 'glory' here, 
as frequently, stands for the majesty 
or the power or the goodness of God, 
as mcmi/eated to meuj e.g. Eph. i. 6, 
12, 17, iii. 16; comp. ver. 27, below. 
The 86^a, the bright light over the 
mercy-seat (Rom. ix. 4), was a symbol 
of such manifestations. God's revela- 
tion of Himself to us, however this 
revelation may be made, is the one 
source of all our highest strength 
{kutci to Kparos k.t.X.). 

vnop-ovriv KaifiaKpodvfiiav] 'endurance 
and long-suffering.' The two words 
occur in the same context in 2 Cor. vi. 
4, 6, 2 Tim. iii. 10, James v. 10, i i,Clem. 
Rom. 58 (64), Ign. Ephes. 3. They 
are distinguished in Trench Synon. 
§ liii. p. 184 sq. The difference of 
meaning is best seen in their oppositcs. 
While vTTOfiovrj is the temper which 
does not easily succumb under suffer- 
ing, fiaKpoBvpia is the self-restraint 
which docs not hastily retaliate a 
wrong. The one is opposed to cotc- 
ardice or despondency, the other to 
wraUi or revenge (Prov. xv. 18, xvi. 32 ; 
see also the note on iii. 12). While 
vnofiovfj is closely aUied to hope (i 
Thess. i. 3), p.aKpo6vp.ia is commonly 
connected \rith y/z^/ry (e.g.Exod. xxxiv. 
6). This distinction however, though 
it applies generally, is not true with- 

out exception. Thus in Is. Ivii. 15 
fiaKpoOvpia is Opposed to oKiyo-^vxi-a, 
where we should rather have expected 
vTTop.ovri ; and p.aKpo6vixuv is used simi- 
larly in James v. 7. 

p-iTa x^P^^^ So James L 2, 3, natrav 
Xapav riyrjaaade.-.oTav TTfipacrpo^s wf- 
pnrecnjre ttolicIXois, yivdaKOVTes oti to 
doKipiov vpu>v TTJs Triarecos KaTepya^eTiu 

vTTopov^v K.T.X.: comp. I Pet. iv. 15, 
and see below i. 24. This parallel 
points to the proper connexion of 
peTo. x^P^s, which should be attached 
to the preceding words. On the other 
hand some would connect it with ev- 
xapi(TTovvT(9 for the sake of preserving 
the balance of the three clauses, ep 

Trai'Ti epyco dyadco Kap7T-o(f)opovvTes, iv 
Ttacnj 8viapfi dvvapovpevoi, pera ;^ap5s 
f v'xopioToCi'rey ; and this seems to be 
favoured by Phil. i. 4 pera x^^P^s ttjv 
biTjaiv TTOLovpevos : but when it is so 
connected, the emphatic position of 
peTo. xapas cannot be explained; nor 
indeed would these words be needed 
at all, for evxapicria is in itself an act 
of rejoicing. 

12. (vxcipt-a-TovvTei] Most naturally 
coordinated with the preceding parti- 
ciples and referred to the Colossians. 
The duty of thanksgiving is more than 
once enforced upon them below, ii. 7, 
iii. 17, iv. 2 ; comp. i Thess. v. 18. On 
the other hand the first person ijpas, 
which follows, has led others to con- 
nect evxapia-Tovvres with the primary 
verb of the sentence, 01; iravopeda ver. 
9. But, even if the reading Tjpas be 
preferred to vpas (which is perhaps 
doubtful), the sudden transition from 
the second to the first person is quite 
after St Paul's manner (see the note 

on ii. 13) 14) cvvf^aiOTroirjcrev vp,as... 

Xapto-apevos ij/xii'), and cannot create 
any difficulty. 

Tw iKavda-avTi] 'who made us com- 
petent'; comp. 2 Cor. iii. 6. On the 


vuxjavTL t]fJLas ets Trju fiepi^a tou KXripov tmv dyicoi/ ev 
Tft) (pwTi' '2 09 ipva-aro t'ljua^ e/c Trjs e^oua-las tov 

various readings see the detached 

TTjv fxepida tov KXi^pov] 'the parcel 
of the lot' 'the portion which consists 
in the lot,' tov KXiipov being the 
genitive of apposition : see Winer § lix. 
p. 666 sq., and corap. Ps. xv (xvi). 5 
Kvpios iJ.ep\s TTJs KXrjpovopias p,ov. In 
Acts viii. 21 p.fph and Kkfjpos are co- 
ordinated ; in Gen. xxxi. 14, Num. 
xviii. 20, Is. Ivii. 6, p.€p\s and k\t]po- 
vop.ia. The inheritance of Canaan, the 
allotment of the promised land, here 
presents an analogy to, and supplies 
a metaphor for, the higher hopes of 
the new dispensation, as in Heb. iii. 
7 — iv. II. See also below, iii. 24. Tt)u 
dvTanoSoaLV tt) s KXr]povop,lai, and Ephes. 
i. 18. St Chrysostom writes, bia tL 
KXfjpov KoXfl; BeiKviis oti ov8f\s ano 
KaTopOcofiaTuv olKeiav jSaaiKfias Tvyxa- 
vei, referring to Luke xvii. 10. It is 
not won by us, but allotted to us. 

iv T(a 0wTt] Best taken with the 
expression T-qv yupiba k..tX. For the 
omission of the definite article, [rrjv] 
iv TO) 0cart, see above, vv. 2, 4, 8. The 
portion of the saints is situated in the 
kingdom of light. For the whole con- 
text compare St Paul's narrative in 

Acts XXVi. 18 TOV i7Tl(TTp€-^CU aTTO 

<TK()Tovs (Is (})as Ka\ ttjs i^ov(Tias 
TOV 2aTava. inl tov Qeov, tov XalSelv 
avTovs acpecriv anapTioiv Koi KXfjpov 
iv Tols i]yiaa-p,ivois, where all the 
ideas and many of the expressions 
recur. See also Acts xx. 32, in another 
of St Paul's later speeches. As a clas- 
sical parallel, Plato Resp. vii. p. 5 1 8 a, 
eK re (pcoTos eh ctkotos p.e6ia-Tap.iva)V 
KcCi iK aKOTovs fls 4>ois, is quoted. 

13. ' We were slaves in the land of 
darkness. God rescued us from this 
thraldom. He transplanted us thence, 
and settled us as free colonists and 
citizens in the kingdom of His Son, in 
the realms of light.' 

ipvauTo] 'rescued, delivered us' by 
His strong arm, as a mighty conquer- 
or: comp. ii. 15 dpiafi^eiKTas. On the 
form ipva-uTo see A. Buttmann, p. 29: 
comp. Clem. Rom. 55, and see the 
note on i^epi^aa-ev, ib. 6. 

i^ova'ias] Here 'arbitrary power, ty- 
ranny.' The word i^ovaia properly sig- 
nifies 'liberty of action' (f^eoTi), and 
thence, like the corresponding Eng- 
lish word 'license,' involves two second- 
ary ideas, of whicli either may be so 
prominent as to eclipse the other ; 
(i) 'authority,' 'delegated power' (e.g. 
Luke XX. 2); or (2) 'tyranny,* 'law- 
lessness,' ' unrestrained or arbitrary 
power.' For this second sense comp. 
e.g. Demosth. F. L. p. 428 t^v ayav 
TavTTjv i^ova-iav, Xenoph. Hiero 5 

r^s di TO irapov i^ova-ias iveKa (speak- 
ing of tyrants), Plut. Fit. Bum. 13 aVa- 
yayoi Toii i^ova-iais Ka\ fiaXaKol Tals 
diairaii, Vit. Alex. 33 tyjv i^ovcrlav 
Kal tov ZyKov Tris 'AXe^avSpov dwdnecos, 
Herodian 11. 4 KuduLpfaiv Trjs dftTov 
i^ovaias. This latter idea of a capri- 
cious unruly rule is prominent here. 
Ihc expression rj i^ovala tov vkotovs 
occurs also in Luke xxii, 53, where 
again the idea of disorder is involved. 
The transference from darkness to 
light is here represented as a trans- 
ference from an arbitrary tyranny, an 
i^nvala, to a well-ordered sovereignty, 
a ^aa-iXda. This seems also to be 
St Chrysostom's idea ; for he explains 
TTJs i^ova-ias by Trjs Tvpavvidos, adding 
XaXfTvov Koi TO ottXcos elvai vtto tco 8ia- 
/3oAa)" TO 8e Kal [kt i^ova-ias, tovto 

(i€T€a-Tr]a-ev'] 'removed,' when they 
were baptized, when they accepted 
Christ. The image of neTia-TTjaev is 
supplied by the wholesale transporta- 
tion of peoples (dvaa-TaTovs or dva- 
cnrdaTovs noielv), of which the history 
of oriental monarchies supplied so 


CTKOTOV^, Kai fieTea-Ti^arev ets Ttiv (SaciXeiav tov vlov t^§ 

many examples. See Joseph. A71L ix. 

II. I Tovs olnTfTopas alxfJ'oXcoTiaas 
(leTeaTTjaev els t^v airov ^aaiKeiav, 
speaking of Tiglath-Pileser and the 
Transjordanic tribes. 

TOV vlov] Not of inferior angels, as 
the false teachers would have it (ii. 18), 
but of His own Son. The same con- 
trast between a dispensation of angels 
and a dispensation of tlie Son un- 
derlies tlie words here, which is ex- 
plicitly brought out in Heb. i. i — ii. 8; 
see especially i. 2 iXaXrjcrev ijulv iv via, 
compared with ii. 5 ov yap dyyeXois 
VTTiTa^iv rf]v olKovfiivqv ttjv iieXXovcrav. 

Severianus has rightly caught the idea 
underlying tov vlov here ; vnh top 
KK-qpovoyiov idfxfv, ovx viro tovs olKeras. 
TTJs dydjrrjs avTov] ^ of Sis love.' As 
love is the essence of the Father(i Joh. 
iv. 8, 16), so is it also of the Son. The 
mission of the Son is the revelation of 
the Father's love ; for as He is the 
p.ovoyevi]s, the Father's love is per- 
fectly represented in Him (see i Joh. 
iv. 9). St Augustine has rightly in- 
terpreted St Paul's words here, de 
Trin. xv. 19 (viii. p. 993) * Caritas 
quippe Patris... nihil est quam ejus 
ipsa natura atque substantia... ac per 
hoc fihus caritatis ejus nullus est ahus 
quam qui de ejus substantia est geni- 
tus.' See also Orig. c. Cels. v. 1 1. Thus 
these words are intimately connected 
with the expressions which follow, 
etKtoi' TOV Qiov TOV dopuTov (ver. 15), 
and ev avTa fvBoKrjcrev nav to ttX?;- 

pcofjia AcaroiK^o-at (ver. 19). The loosc 
interpretation, which makes tov vlov 
Tys dyaTTTjs equivalent to tov vlov tov 
riyairT]p.ivov, destroys the whole force 
of the expression. 

In the preceding verses we have a 
striking illustration of St Paul's teach- 
ing in two important respects. First. 
The reign of Christ has already begun. 
His kingdom is a present kingdom. 
Whatever therefore is essential in the 
kingdom of Christ must be capable of 

realisation now. There may be some 
exceptional manifestation in the world 
to come, but this cannot alter its in- 
herent character. In other words the 
sovereignty of Christ is essentially a 
moral and spiritual sovereignty, which 
has begun now and will only be per- 
fected hereafter. Secondly. Corre- 
sponding to this, and equally signi- 
ficant, is his language in speaking of 
individual Christians. He regards 
them as already rescued from the 
power of darkness, as already put in 
possession of their inheritance as 
saints. They are potentially saved, 
because the knowledge of God is itself 
salvation, and this knowledge is within 
their reacL Such is St Paul's con- 
stant mode of speaking. He uses the 
language not of exclusion, but of com- 
prehension. He prefers to dwell on 
their potential advantages, rather than 
on their actual attainments. He hopes 
to make them saints by dwelling on 
their calling as saints. See especiiUly 
Ephes. ii. 6 <Tvvi]yeipev Koi crvvfuddiuev 
ev To2s (TTOvpaviois iv 'Kpiara Irjcrov k.t.X. 

14. ex°M«''] Foi" ^^6 reading etr- 
XOfiev, which is possibly correct here, 
and which carries out the idea en- 
forced in the last note, see the de- 
tached note on the various readings. 
In the parallel passage, Ephes. i. 7, 
there is the same variation of reading. 

TTJV diro\vTpco(Tij>] 'ransom, redemp- 
tion.' The image of a captive and en- 
slaved people is still continued : Philo 
Omn. prob. lib. 17 (11. p. 463) alxfjid- 

XcoTOS d7rj;;(^r/. .■aTroyfoiiy aTToXvTpaxTii', 
Plut. Vit. Pomp. 24 noXemv aix/^a- 
Xa)T(ov dnoXvTpaaeis. The metaphor 
however has changed from the victor 
who rescues the captive by force of arms 
(ver. 13 ipvaaTo) to the philanthropist 
who releases him by the payment of a 
ransom. The clause which follows in 
the received text, bia tov aljiaros av- 
Tov, is interpolated from the parallel 
passage, Ephes. i. 7. 


I. 14] JlJi'iiSTLiJJi TU Tlihi DUJjUSSIAJNK. I4I 

d<ya7rri<5 avrov, ^'^eV (o exofxev Trji/ dTroXurpMO-iVj rnv 
dcpeo'ip Ttjov d/uLapTicov 

14. eV <p ^crxofiev. 

rfjv a(f>e(TiP tcov dfiapriav] So in the 
parallel passage Ephes. i. 7 the Apo- 
stle defines ttjv dnoXvTpcoa-iv as rf/v 
acjiecriv rav napaTrrcofiaTcov. May not 
this studied precision point to some 
false conception of diro^vrpcoa-is put 
forward by the heretical teachers ? 
Later Gnostics certainly perverted the 
meaning of the term, applying it to 
their own formularies of initiation. 
This is related of the Marcosians by 
Irenseus i. 13. 6 did ttjv dnoXiiTpaa-iv 
aKpaTTjTovs Koi aoparovs yiveadai ra 
KptTJJ K.r.X., i. 21. I 0(701 yap eicrt 
Tavrrjs rfjs yvafirjs fivcrTaycoyoi, roaav- 
rai Kal dirdkvrpaxTeis, ib. § 4 ^i-vai, be 
TeXeiav aTTokvTpcoaiv avrffv ttjp erriyvco- 
<riv Tov dppijTov fieyedovs (with the 
whole context), and Hippolytus Hear. 
vi. 41 Xeyovai ri (pccvfj dpp^TO), eniri- 
6evT€s X*^'P" ''"'? '''V'^ dnokvTpaxTiv Xa- 
^ovTi K.r.X. (comp. ix. 13). In sup- 
port of their nomenclature they per- 
verted such passages as the text, Iren. 
1. 21. 2 TOV IlavXov prjrds (fidaKovai 
TTjv iv 'KpKTTa'lrjaov dnoKiiTpaxriv ttoX- 
XaKis p.epr]vvKevai. It seems not im- 
probable that the communication of 
similar mystical secrets, perhaps con- 
nected with their angelology (ii. 18), 
was put forward by these Colossian 
false teachers as an dnoXvTpaxTis. Com- 
pare the words in the baptismal for- 
mula of the Marcosians as given in 
Iren. i. 21. 3 (comp. Theodt. Mcer. 
Fab. i. 9) els evaxnv koi dnokvTpacnv Ka\ 
KOLvaviav rav bvvdpemv, where the last 
words (which have been diflferently 
interpreted) must surely mean ' com- 
munion with the (spiritual) powers.' 
Thus it is a parallel to els Xvrpaxnv 
dyyeXiKrjv, which appears in an alter- 
native formula of these heretics given 
likewise by Irenseus in the context ; 
for this latter is explained in Clem. 
Alex. Exc. Theod. p. 974, els Xiirpaaiv 

ayyeXiKTjv, rovrecrriv, fjv Koi ayyeXoi 
exova-iv. Any direct historical con- 
nexion between the Colossian heretics 
and these later Gnostics of the Valen- 
tinian school is very improbable ; but 
the passages quoted will serve to show 
how a false idea of dnoXvrpcuais would 
naturally be associated with an eso- 
teric doctrine of angelic powers. See 
the note on i. 28 tva napaaT'^crcopev 
navra dvQponTTOV reXeiov. 

15 sq. In the passage which fol- 
lows St Paul defines the Person of 
Christ, claiming for Him the absolute 
(i) In relation to the Universe, the 

Natural Creation (vv. 15 — 17); 
(2) In relation to the Church, the 

new Moral Creation (ver. 18); 
and he then combines the two, Iva 

yevrjTai iv irdaiv avTos irpa>Teva)v, ex- 
plaining this twofold sovereignty by the 
absolute indwelling of the pleroma in 
Christ, and showing how, as a conse- 
quence, the reconciliation and har- 
mony of all things must be effected 
in Him (vv. 19, 20). 

As the idea of the Logos underhes 
the whole of this passage, though the 
term itself does not appear, a few 
words explanatory of this term will be 
necessai'y by way of preface. The 
word Xoyos then, denoting both ' rea- 
son ' and ' speech,' was a philosophical 
term adopted by Alexandrian Juda- 
ism before St Paul wrote, to express 
the manifestation oi i\\Q Unseen God, 
the Absolute Being, in the creation 
and government of the World. It 
included all modes by which God 
makes Himself known to man. As 
His reason, it denoted His purpose 
or design ; as Hid speech, it implied 
His revelation. Whether this Xdyos 
was conceived merely as the divine 
energy personified, or whether the 



[I. 15 

^•5 09 icTTiv eiKoou Tov Qeov Tou dopdroVf ttjOwtoto/cos 

conception took a more concrete form, 
I need not stop now to enquire ; but 
I hope to give a fuller account of the 
matter in a later volume. It is suf- 
ficient for the understanding of what 
follows to say that Christian teachers, 
when they adopted this term, exalted 
and fixed its meaning by attaching 
to it two precise and definite ideas : 
(i) 'The Word is a Divine Person,' 
6 \6yos ^v TTpos TOV Qeov Koi Qeos tjv 
o \6yos ; and (2) ' The Word became 
incarnate in Jesus Christ,' 6 Xoyoy 
(Tap^ eyevero. It is obvious that these 
two propositions must have altered 
materially the significance of all the 
subordinate terms connected with the 
idea of tlie Xoyos ; and that therefore 
their use in Alexandrian writers, such 
as Philo, cannot be taken to define, 
though it may be brought to illus- 
trate, their meaning in St Paul and 
St Jolm. With these cautions the 
Alexandrian phraseology, as a pro- 
vidential preparation for the teaching 
of the Gospel, will aftbrd important 
aid in the understanding of the Apo- 
stolic writings. 

15 — 17. ' He is the perfect image, 
the visible representation, of the un- 
seen God. He is the Firstborn, the 
absolute Heir of the Father, begotten 
before the ages ; the Lord of the 
Universe by virtue of primogeniture, 
and by virtue also of creative agency. 
For in and through Him the whole 
world was created, things in heaven 
and things on earth, things visible 
to the outward eye and things cog- 
nisable by the inward perception. His 
supremacy is absolute and universal. 
All powers in heaven and earth are 
subject to Him. This subjection ex- 
tends even to the most exalted and 
most potent of angelic beings, whether 
they be called Thrones or Domina- 
tions or Princedoms or Powers, or 
whatever title of dignity men may 
confer upon them. Yes : He is first 
and He is last. Through Him, as the 

mediatorial Word, the imiverse has 
been created ; and unto Him, as the 
final goal, it is tending. In Him is 
no before or after. He is pre-existent 
and self-existent before all the worlds. 
And in Him, as the binding and sus- 
taining power, universal nature co- 
heres and consists.' 

15. Off ecTTiv K.T.X.] The Person of 
Christ is described Jirst in relation 
more especially to Deity, as elKoiv tov 
Qeov TOV dopuTov, and Secondly in 
relation more especially to created 
things, as npcoTOTOKOs Ttaarjs KTia-ecoi. 

The fundamental conception of the 
Logos involves the idea of mediation 
between God and creation. A per- 
verted view respecting the nature of 
the mediation between the two lay, 
as we have seen, at the root of the 
heretical teaching at Colossse (p. 34, 
p. loi sq., p. 115 sq.), and required to 
be met by the true doctrine of Christ 
as the Eternal Logos. 

(Ikkov] ' the image.' This expres- 
sion is used repeatedly by Philo, as a 
description of the Logos; de Mand. 
Op. 8 (l. p. 6) TOV doparov kcu votjtov 
de'iov \6yov eiKova \iyei Qeov, ds 
Con f US. ling. 20 (l. p. 419) t^v fUova 
avTOv, TOV lepfOTaTov \6ynv, ih. § 28 
(l. p. 4-7) '''^^ ciihiov (Ikovo^ avTov Xo- 
yov TOV lepcdTaTov k.t.X., de Pl'ofug. 
19 (l. p. 561) o vTTepavoa tovtchv Xoyoy 
6e'LOS...avTos eiKcov vitap)(a>v Qeov, de 
Monarch, ii. 5 (11. p. 225) \oyos be 
tcTTLV eiKoyv Qeoi) St uv avp.nai- o k6- 
(Tfios e8r]fiLovpye7To, de Somn. i. 41 
(r. p. 656), etc. For the use which 
Philo made of the text Gen. i. 26, 27, 

KiiT eiKova rjfieTepav, /cot' eiKOVa Qeov, 

see the note on iii 10. Still earlier 
than Philo, before the idea of the Xo- 
yos had assumed such a definite form, 
the term was used of the Divine (To((>ia 
personified in Wisd. vii. 26 dnavyaa-na 
yap ecTTi (pcoTOS ai8iov...Ka\ e'lKcov Trjs 
dyadoTrjTos avTov. St Paul himself 
applies the term to our Lord in an 
earlier epistle, 2 Cor. iv. 4 ttjs 86^r}s 

I. 15] 



(comp. iii. 18 ttjv avrffv dKova fiera- 

Hop(f)oviie6a). Closely allied to ehoov 
also is ;^apaKT-r?p, which appears in the 
same connexion in Heb. i. 3 cSi- aTrav- 
yadfia ttjs do^rjs koI ')(apaKTrip Trjs vtto- 
(TTaa-ecos avTov, a passage illustrated 
by Philo de Plant. 5 (i. p. 332) acfipa- 
■yiSi Qeov ^y o xapaKT'^p iariv dldios 

Xoyoy. See also Phil. ii. 6 tV popcjifj 

Ofov VTrapxcou. 

Beyond the very obvious notion of 
likeness, the word (Ikcov involves two 
other ideas ; 

(i) Representation. In this re- 
spect it is allied to x^po-<'''VPi ^^^ ^^- 
fers from 6poia>pa. In opoimpa the 
resemblance may be accidental, as 
one egg is Like another ; but {Ikcou 
implies an archetype of which it is a 
copy, as Greg. Naz. Oral. 30 (i. p. 554) 

says avTT} yap sIkovos cj)vais plprjpa 
eivai TOV apx^fvirov. So too lo. Da- 

masc. de Imag. i. 9 (i. p. 311) eiKoiv 

eariv opo'iwpa x^^P'^'^''"'] P^C^'^ '"'' 
TrpatTOTvnov ; comp. Philo <ic Mund. 
Op. 23 (i. p. 16). On this difference 
see Trench N. T. Synon. § xv. p. 47. 
The elKu>v might be the result of direct 
imitation {pipr)TiKri) like the head of 
a sovereign on a coin, or it might be 
due to natural causes {(f)v(n.Krj) like 
the parental features in the child, 
but in any case it was derived from 
its prototype : see Basil, de Spir. 
Sand. 18 § 45 (hi. p. 38). The word 
itself however does not necessarily 
imply perfect representation. Thus 
man is said to be the image of God ; 

I Cor. xi. 7 fi'«<u'' fa' bo^a Qeov vnap- 
X<^v, Clem. Rom. 33 a.v6pMTvov...Tr]s 
eavTov el<6vos ;^a/ja(cT^pa. Thus again 
an early JudiJeo-Christian writer so 
designates the duly a]4)ointed bishop, 
as the representative of the Divine au- 
thority ; Clem. Horn. iii. 62 &5ff elKova 
Qeov TTpoTipccvTas. The idea of per- 
fection does not lie in the word itself, 
but must be sought from the context 
(e.g. nav TO nXijpapa ver. 19). The 
use which was made of this expression, 
and especially of this passage, in the 

Christological controversies of the 
fourth and fifth centuries may be seen 
from the patristic quot/ations in Petav. 
Theol. Dogm. de Tria ii. 11. 9 sq., 
vi. 5. 6. 

(2) Manifestation. This idea comes 
from the implied contrast to tov do- 
par ov Qeov. St Chrysostom indeed 
maintains the direct opposite, arguing 
that, as the archetype is invisible, so 
the image must be invisible also, jj 

TOV aoparov elKoiv Kal avrrj dopuTos Kal 
opolws doparos. So too Hilary c. 
Const. Imp. 21 (11. p. 378) 'ut imago 
invisibilis Dei, etiam per id quod ipse 
invisibilis est, invisibilis Dei imago 
esset.' And this was the view of the 
Nicene and post-Nicene fathers gene- 
rally. But the underlying idea of the 
elK(iv, and indeed of the \6yos gene- 
rally, is the manifestation of the hid- 
den : comp. Philo de Fit. Mays. ii. 1 2 
(11. p. 144) elKiov TTjs dopdrov (fyvaeas 
e'pfjiavrjs. And adopted into Christian 
theology, the doctrine of the Xoyos 
expresses this conception still more 
prominently by reason of the Incarna- 
tion ; comp. Tertull. adv. Marc. v. 19 
' Scientes filium semper retro visum, si 
quibus visus est in Dei nomine, ut 
imagiuem ipsius,' Hippol. c. Noet. 7 
Sta yap t^s eluovoi opoias Tvyxavovarjs 
evyvaxTTos 6 irarrjp yiveTai, ib. 
§ 12, 13, Orig. in loann. vi. § 2 (iv. 
p. 104). Among the post-Nicene fa- 
thers too St Basil has caught the right 
idea, Epist. xxxviii. 8 (ni. p. 121) 6 
Tf)s cIkouos KUTavoijaas koXXos iv Trepi- 
vo'ia TOV dpxervTTov y'lverai. ..[SXeiveiv did 
TovTov iKe'ivov...To dyevvrjTop kuXXos iv 
TM yevvrjT(o KaTonrevcras. The Word, 

whether pre-incarnato or incarnate, 
is the revelation of the unseen Father : 

comp. John i. 18 Qeov ouSeiy eapa- 
K€V TToinoTe' povoyevTjs Qeos, d a>v els 
TOV koXttov rod narpos, iKelvos i^rjyrj- 
craTO, XIV. 9, 10 6 iapaKcoi ipe ici- 
paKev TOV rrarepa' ncis av Xeyeis, 
Ae'i^ov rjplv tov nuTepa ; (compared 
with vi. 46 ovx OTL TOV TTarepa itopaKev 

Tis K.T.X.). The epithet dopdrov how- 
ever must not be confined to the ap- 




prehension of the bodily senses, but 
will include the cognisance of the in- 
ward eye also. 

nptoTOTOKOs Traarjs /crtVcojs] * the 
First-born of all creation.' The word 
TzpcoTOTOKos has a twofold parentage : 

(i) Like flK<ov it is closely con- 
nected with and taken fi-om the Alex- 
andrian vocabulary of the Logos. The 
word however which Philo applies to 
the Xoyo? is not TrparoroKos but Trpcu- 
Toyovos: cle Agric. 12 (i. p. 308) vrpo- 
(TTTjarapevoi tov 6p6ov avTov Xoyov npco- 
Toyovov vlov, de Somn. i. 37 (i. p. 653) 
6 TTpuiToyovos avTov Belos Xoyos, de 
Gonfus. liny. 1. 28 (l. p. 427) (rirovba- 
feVco Koa-p-e'iadai, Kara tov Trpcoroyovov 

avTov Xoyov : comp. ib. L 14 ;i. p. 4^4) 


dvereiXe TraT^p, ov irepcodi Trpcoroyovov 
tovop-aa-e : and this designation Trpecr- 
^vraros vlos is several times applied 
to the Xoyos. Again in Qtds rev. div. 
her. § 24 (I. p. 489) the language of 
Exod. xiii. 2 ayiaa-ov fioi irav Trpcuroro- 
Kov nparoyeves k.t.X. is 80 interpreted 
as to apply to the Divine Word. These 
appellations, 'the first-begotten, the 
eldest son,' are given to the Logos by 
Philo, because in his philosophy it 
includes the original conception, the 
archetypal idea, of creation, which 
was afterwards realised in the mate- 
rial world. Among the early Chris- 
tian fathers Justin Martyr again and 
again recognises the application of the 
term TrparoTOKos to the "Word ; Apol. 
L 23 (p. 68) Xoyos avTOV vnapxcov Ka\ 
irpaTOTOKos Koi dvvafxis, ib. § 46 (p. 83) 
TOV 'S.piO'Tov TrpcoroTOKOV tov Qeov eivai 
.. Xoyov ovra ov irav yivos dvBpaTTcov 
fiereaxf, ib. § 33 (p. 75 c) tov Xoyov 05 
Koi TrpcoTOTOKOi TO) Bf(B e'oTt, So tOO 

Theophilus ad Autol. ii. 22 tovtov tov 
Xoyov fyevvTjcrev 7rpo0ootKoi', TrpwroTO- 
Kov ndcrrjs KTiaecos. 

(2) The word irptoTOTOKos had also 
another not less important link of 
connexion with the past. The Mes- 
sianic reference of Pa. Ixxxix. 28, iym 
irparoTOKOV 6t] avrbv k.t.X., seems 
to have been generally allowed. So 

at least it is interpreted by R. Nathan 
in Shemoth Rabba i9,fol. 118. 4, 'God 
said. As I made Jacob a first-born 
(Exod. iv. 22), so also will I make 
king Messiah a first-bom (Ps, Ixxxix. 
28).' Hence 'the first-born' 6 Trpcoro- 
TOKos (1133) used absolutely, became 
a recognised title of Messiah. The 
way had been paved for this Messianic 
reference of Trpmroro/cos by its prior 
application to the Israelites, as the 
prerogative race, Exod. iv. 22 ' Israel 
is my son, my first-bom ' : comp. Psalm. 
Salom. xviii. 4 7) naiheia (TOV ecf)' 7/iiaf 
as vlbv irpcoTOTOKOv p.ovoy(vfj, 4 Esdr. vi. 
58 'nos populus tuus, quern vocasti 
primogenitum, unigenitum,' where the 
combination of the two titles applied 
in the New Testament to the Son is 
striking. Here, as elsewhere (see the 
note on Gal. iii. 16 kuI rots (nripp-aa-iv 
K.T.X.), the terms are transferred from 
the race to the Messiah, as the repre- 
sentative, the embodiment, of the race. 

As the Pei-son of Christ was the 
Divine response alike to the philoso- 
phical questionings of the Alexan- 
drian Jew and to the patriotic hopes 
of the Palestinian, these two currents 
of thought meet in the term nparo- 
TOKos as applied to our Lord, who is 
both the true Logos and the true 
Messiah. For this reason, we may 
suppose, as well as for others, the 
Christian Apostles preferred irpcoro- 
TOKos to TTpcoToyovos, which (as we may 
infer from Philo) was the favourite 
term with the Alexandrians, because 
the former alone would include the 
Messianic reference as welL 

The main ideas then which the word 
involves are twofold; the one more 
directly connected with the Alexan- 
drian conception of the Logos, the 
other more nearly allied to the Pales- 
tinian conception of the Messiah. 

(i) Priority to all creation. In 
other words it declares the absolute 
pre-existence of the Son. At first 
sight it might seem that Christ is 
here regarded as one, though the 
earliest, of created beings. This in- 

T. i5l 



terpretation however is not required 
by the expression itself. The fathers 
of the fourth century rightly called 
attention to the fact that the Apostle 
writes not ttpcotoktkttos, but nptoTo- 
TOKos; e.g. Basil, c. Eunom. iv (i. 
p. 292). Much earlier, in Clem. Alex. 
Exc. Theod. 10 (p. 970), though with- 
out any direct reference to this pas- 
sage, the fiopoyevrjs Koi irpuToroKos is 
contrasted with the TrpmroKTia-Toi, the 
highest order of angelic beings; and 
the word ttpcotoktkttos occurs more 
than once elsewhere in his writings (e.g. 
Strom. V. 14, p. 699). Nor again does 
the genitive case necessarily imply that 
the irpcoTOTOKos Himself belonged to 
the kt'lo-is, as will be shown presently. 
And if this sense is not required by the 
words themselves, it is directly exclud- 
ed by the context. It is inconsistent 
alike with the universal agency in 
creation which is ascribed to Him in 
the words following, iv avTa (KTiadrj 
Ta navTu, and with the absolute pre- 
existence and self-existence which is 
claimed for Him just below, avros 
f'aTip np6 TtavToov. Wo may add also 
that it is irreconcilable with other 
passages in the Apostolic writings, 
while it contradicts the fundamental 
idea of the Christian consciousness. 
More especially the description Trpwro- 
TOKos traa-rjs KTiaecos must bo interpret- 
ed in such a way that it is not incon- 
sistent with His other title of fiovoye- 
vT)s, unicus, alone of His kind and 
therefore distinct from created things. 
The two words express the same 
eternal fact ; but while povoyevrjs 
states it in itself, ivpuiTOTOKos places it 
in relation to the Universe. The 
correct interpretation is supplied by 
Justin Martyr, Dial. § 100 (p. 326 


indeed mention this passage, but it 
was doubtless in his mind, for he else- 
where uses the very expression Trpw- 
TOTOicos nda-rjs /crtVfcos, Dial. § 85 
(p. 311 b), § 138 (p. 367 d); comp. also 
§ 84 (p. 310 b), where the words ttocu- 



(2) Sovereignty over all creation. 
God's 'first-born' is the natural ruler, 
the acknowledged head, of God's 
household. The right of primogeni- 
ture appertains to Messiah over all 
created things. Thus in Ps. Ixxxix. 

28 after ttpcototokov dijaopai avTov 

the explanation is added, v-yjrrjXov 
irapa toIs ^aaikevcriv ttjs yrjs, i.e. (as 
the original implies) 'above all the 
kings of the earth.' In its Messianic 
reference this secondary idea of 
sovereignty predominated in the word 
TTparoTOKos, SO that from this point of 
view TTpcoToTOKos TTOOTyy KTicTeus would 
mean 'Sovereign Lord over all crea- 
tion by virtue of primogeniture.' The 

f6r]K€v Kkrfpovopov TvavTcov of the Apo- 

stolic wiiter (Heb. i. 2) exactly cor- 
responds to the 6r)( TTpCOTOTOKOV 

of the Psalmist (Ixxxix. 28), and 
doubtless was tacitly intended as a 
paraphrase and application of this 
Messianic passage. So again in Heb. 
xii. 23, €KK\r](Tia TTpaiTOTOKcov, the most 
probable explanation of the word is 
that which makes it equivalent to 
'heirs of the kingdom,' all faithful 
Christians being ipso/acta rrpaTOTOKoi, 
because all are kings. Nay, so com- 
pletely might this idea of dominion by 
virtue of priority eclipse the primary 
sense of the term 'first-born' in some 
of its uses, that it is given as a title to 
God Himself by R. Bechai on the Pen- 
tateuch, fol. 124. 4, 'Who is primo- 
genitus mundi,' D^iy h^ niD2 N1nt^^ 
l.e oy icTTLV npcoTOTOKOs Tov KocrpLOv, as 
it would be rendered in Greek, In this 
same work again, fol. 74. 4, Exod. xiii. 
2 is falsely interpreted so that God is 
represented as calling Himself ' pri- 
mogenitus': see Schottgen p. 922. 
For other instances of secondary uses 
of "I1D3 in the Old Testament, where 
the idea of 'priority of birth' is over- 
shadowed by and lost in the idea of 
'pre-eminence,' see Job xviii. 13 'the 
first-born of death,' Is. xiv. 30 ' the 
first-born of the poor.' 

TTcirrr^s Kri'a-ecoy] 'of all creation,' 



rather than ' of every created thing.' 
The three senses of kt'ktis in the New 
Testament are : (i) creation, as the 
act of creating, e.g. Rom. i. 20 aivo 
KTi(T€(os Kocr/iou : (2) creation, as the 
aggi-egate of created things, Mark xiii. 
19 dir dpxf]s KTicrews rpv eKTiaev 6 Qeos 
(where the parallel passage, Matt. 
xxiv. 21, has d-jr dpx^s Kog-fiov), lloni. 
viii. 22 TToo-a 1) icTiais ava-revd^ei : (3) 
a creation, a single created thing, a 
creature, e.g. Rom. viii. 39 ovre rts- 

kt'ktls erepa, Heb. iv. 1 3 ovk. eariv 
KTiais d({)ain]s. As kt'ictls without the 
definite article is sometimes used of 
tlie created world generally (e. g. Mark 
xiii. 19), and indeed belongs to the 
category of anarthrous nouns hke 
Koa-yios, yrj, ovpavos, etc. (see Winer 
§ xix. p. 149 sq.), it is best taken so 
here. Indeed nda-rjs KTiaeas, in the 
sense of Trdvros (cTiV/iarof, would be 
awkward in this connexion; for Trpw- 
TOTOKos seems to require either a col- 
lective noun, or a plural iraa-av rav 
KTia- fcov. In ver. 23 the case is differ- 
ent (see the note there). The anar- 
throus nda-a Kricris is found in Judith 
ix. 12 /^afftXev trdcrqs KTicrfcos aov, 
while wdcra j) KTiais occurs in Judith 
xvi. 14, Mark xvi. 15, Rom. viiL 22, 
Clem. Rom. 19, Mart. Polyc. 14. For 
Tray, signifying 'a//,' and not ^ every,' 
when attached to this class of nouns, 
see Winer § xviii. p. 137. 

The genitive case must be inter- 
preted so as to include the fuU mean- 
ing of TrpcororoKos, as already ex- 
plained. It will therefore signify : 
' He stands in the relation of Trpwro- 
TOKos to aU creation,' i.e. 'He is the 
Firstborn, and, as the Firstborn, the 
absolute Heir and sovereign Lord, of 
all creation.' The connexion is the 
same as in the passage of R. Bechai 
already quoted, where God is called 
primogerdtus mundi. Another ex- 
planation which would connect the 
genitive with the first part of the com- 
poimd alone (Trpwro-), comparing Job. 
i- 15) 3°! Trpojrof p.ov rjv, unduly strains 
the grammar, while it excludes the 



idea of 'heirship, sovereignty.' 

The history of the patristic exegesis 
of this expression is not without a pain- 
ful interest. All the fathers of the 
second and third centuries without 
exception, so far as I have noticed, 
correctly refer it to the Eternal 
Word and not to the Incarnate Christ, 
to the Deity and not to the hu- 
manity of our Lord. So Justin I. c, 
Theophilus /. c, Clement of Alexan- 
di-ia Exc. Theod. 7, 8, 19 (pp. 967, 
973), TertuUian ado. Prax. 7, ade. 
Marc. V. 19, Mippolytus Hcer. x. 2)2), 
Origen c. Cels. vi. 47, 63, 64, etc., in 
loann. L § 22 (iv. p. 21), xix. § 5 (p. 
305), xxviii. § 14 (p. 392), Cyprian 
Test. ii. I, Novatian de Trin. 16, and 
the Synod of Antioch (Routh's Rel 
Sacr. nL pp. 290, 293). The Arian 
controversy however gave a dif- 
ferent turn to the exegesis of the 
passage. The Arians fastened upon 
the expression irpaToroKos Trdtrrjs kti- 
aeas, aud drow from it the inference 
that the Son was a created being. 
The great use which they made of 
the text appears from the document 
in Hilary, Fragm. Hist. Op. n. p. 
644. The right answer to this false 
interpretation we have already seen. 
Many orthodox fathers however, not 
satisfied with this, transferred the 
expression into a new sphere, and 
maintained that irpaiToTOKos ivda-Tjs 
KTicreas describes the Incarnate Christ. 
By so doing they thought to cut up 
the Arian argument by the roots. As 
a consequence of this interpretation, 
they were obliged to understand the 
kt'ictls and the Kri^eadai in the context 
of the new spiritual creation, the 
Kuivfj KTia-is of 2 Cor. v. 17, Gal. vi. 15. 
Thus interpreted, TrpcororoKos irdoTjs 
KTiaeas here becomes nearly equiva- 
lent to TTpcoToroKos iv ttoXXois dSeXcpols 
in Rom. viii. 29. The arguments al- 
leged in favour of this interpretation 
are mainly twofold: (i) That, if ap- 
plied to the Divine nature, irpcoroTOKos 
would contradict ^ovoyevtjs which else- 
where describes the nature of the 

I. 15] 



Eternal Son. But those who main- 
tained, and rightly maintained, that 
npcoToTOKos (Luke ii. 7) did not neces- 
sarily imply that the Lord's mother 
had other sons, ought not to have 
been led away by this fallacy. (2) That 
irpcoTOTOKos in other passages (e. g. 
Rom. viii. 29, Rev. i. 5, and just be- 
low, ver. 18) is applied to the hu- 
manity of Christ. But elsewhere, in 
Ileb. i. 6 orav 6e irakiv daayayrj tov 
irpoiTOTOKov K.T.X., tho torm must al- 
most necessarily refer to the pre- 
existence of the Son ; and moreover 
the very point of the Apostle's lan- 
guage in the text (as will be seen pre- 
sently) is the parallelism in the two 
relations of our Lord — His relation to 
the natural creation, as the Eternal 
Word, and His relation to the spiritual 
creation, as the Head of the Church — 
so that the same word {ttpototokos 
TracTJj? KTtVecof ver. 1 5, ttpoototokos (k 
Tcov veKpav ver. 1 8) is studiously used of 
both. A false exegesis is sure to bring a 
nemesis on itself. Logical consistency 
required that this interpretation should 
be carried farther; and Marcellus, who 
was never deterred by any considera- 
tions of prudence, took this bold stej). 
He extended the principle to the 
whole context, including even eUav 
TOV dopdrov Oeov, which likewise he 
interpreted of our Lord's humanity. 
In this way a most important Christo- 
logical passage was transferred into 
an alien sphere ; and the strongest 
argument against Arianism melted 
away in the attempt to combat Arian- 
ism on false grounds. The criticisms 
of Eusebius on Marcellus ai'e perfectly 
just: Eccl. Theol. i. 20 (p. 96) ravra 
irepi T^s deorriTos tov vlov tov Qeov, 
Kov firj MapKeXXa 8oKfj, e'ipr)Tai' ov yap 
Trept Tqs aapicos enrev av TocravTa 6 
Belos dnoa-ToXos k.t.X.; comp. ib. ii. 9 
(p. 67), iii. 6sq. (p. 175), c. Marcell. i. 
I (p. 6), i. 2 (p. 12), ii. 3 (pp. 43, 
46 sq., 48). The objections to this 
interpretation are threefold : (i) It 
disregards the history of the terms 
in their connexion with the pre- 

Christian speculations of Alexandrian 
Judaism. These however, though di- 
rectly or indirectly they were present 
to the minds of the earlier fathers 
and kept them in the right exegetical 
path, might very easily have escaped 
a writer in the fourth century. (2) It 
shatters the context. To suppose 
that such expressions as iv avTa t- 
KTiadr] TO. TtdvTa [to] iv toIs ovpavols Koi 
[to] en\ TTJs yfjs, OV to Travra 81' avTov 
...eKTiarai, or to. irdvTa iv avTa> crvvi- 
(TTTjKfv, refer to the work of the Incar- 
nation, is to strain language in a way 
which would reduce all theological 
exegesis to chaos; and yet this, as 
Marcellus truly saw, is a strictly logi- 
cal consequence of the interpretation 
which refers npoiToTOKos ndarjs /cTiVetaj 
to Christ's humanity. (3) It takes no 
account of the cosmogony and angel- 
ology of the false teachers against 
which the Apostle's exposition here 
is directed (see above, pp. loi sq., 
iiosq., 115 sq.). This interpretation 
is given by St Athanasius c. Atian. 
ii. 62 sq. (i. p. 419 sq.) and appears 
again in Greg. Nyss. c. Eunom. ii. 
(II. pp. 451—453, 492), ih. iii. (II. p. 
540 — 545), de Per/, (iii. p. 290 sq.), 
Cyril Alex. Thes. 25, p. 236 sq., de 
Trin. Dial. iv. p. 517 sq., vi. p. 625 sq.. 
Anon. Chrysost. Op. viii. p. 223, appx. 
(quoted as Chrysostom by Photius 
Blhl. 277). So too Cyril expresses 
himself at the Council of Ephesus, 
Labb. Cone. iii. p. 652 (ed. Colet). 
St Athanasius indeed does not confine 
the expression to the condescension 
{cTvyKard^acns) of the Word in the In- 
carnation, but includes also a prior 
conde'scension in the Creation of the 
world (see Bull Def. Fid. Nic. iii. 9 § 
I, with the remarks of Newman Select 
Treatises of S. Athanasius i. pp. 278, 
368 sq.). This double reference how- 
ever only confuses the exegesis of 
the passage still further, while theo- 
logically it might lead to very serious 
difficulties. In another work. Expos. 
Fid. 3 (i. p. 80), he seems to take a 
truer view of its meaniiig. St Basil, 

10 — 2 



[I. 16 


7ra(Tt]<s KTicrew^' oti ev avTco eKTicrvrj Ta TravT 


■a, \_'Tci'\ 

who to an equally clear appreciation 
of doctrine generally unites a sounder 
exegesis than St Athanasius, while men- 
tioning the interpretation which refers 
the expression to Christ's human na- 
ture, himself prefers expluining it 
of the Eternal Word; c. Eunom. iv. (i. 
p. 292). Of the Greek commentators 
on this passage, Chrysostom's view is 
not clear; Severianus (Cram. Cat. p. 
303) and Theodoret imderstand it 
rightly of the Eternal Word ; while 
Theodore of Mopsuestia (Cram. Cat. 
pp. 306, 308, 309, Rab. Maur. Op. vi. 
p. 5 1 1 sq. ed. Migne) expresses him- 
self very strongly on the opposite 
side. Like Marcellus, he carries the 
interpretation consistently into the 
whole context, explaining iv avT(i to 
refer not to the original creation {ktI- 
a-is) but to the moral re-creation 
{dvnKTLo-is), and referring elucciv to the 
Incarnation in the same way. At a 
later date, when the pressure of an 
immediate controversy has passed 
away, the Greek writers generally 
concur in the earlier and truer inter- 
pretation of the expression. Thus 
John Damascene {de Orthod. Fid. iv. 
8, I. p. 258 sq.), Theophylact {ad loc), 
and (Ecumenius {ad loc), all explain 
it of Christ's Divine Nature. Among 
Latin writers there is more diver- 
sity of interpretation. While Ma- 
rius Victorinus {ado. Arium i. 24, p. 
1058, ed. Migne), Hilary of Poictiers 
( Tract, in ii Ps. § 28 sq., i. p. 47 sq.; de 
Trin. viii. 50, 11. p. 248 8q.),and Hilary 
the commentator {ad loc), take it of 
tlie Divine Nature, Augustine {Expos. 
ad Rom. 56, iii. p. 914) and Pelagius 
{ad loc) understand it of the Incarnate 
Christ. This sketch of the history of 
the interpretation of the expression 
would not be complete without a re- 
ference to another very different ex- 
planation. Isidore of Pelusium, Epist. 
iii. 31 (p. 268), would strike out a new 
patli of interpretation altogether (ei 

Kill bo^aiixi Ti(Ti Kaivorepav fpiir]Vfias 

dvarefiveip 686v), and for the passive 
TTpuiTOTOKos suggests reading the active 
TrpcoTOTonos, alluding to the use of this 
latter word in Homer (77. xvii. 5 /^vrijp 
7rpa)ror6«oj...ou Trpiv etSvTa tokoio : 
comp. Plat. Thea^t. 151 wanep al 
npcoTOTOKoi). Thus St Paul is made 
to say that Christ •rrpciTov TfroKevai, 
TOVTeari, TTenoirjKevai rfjv KTiaiv. 

16. or I K.r.X.] We have in this sen- 
tence the justification of the title 
given to the Son in the preceding 
clause, TTparoTOKOs Tracnjj AcTiVecoy. It 
must therefore be taken to explain 
the sense in which this title is used. 
Thus connected, it shows that the 
wpaTOTOKos Himself is not included 
in iraa-a KTiais ; for the expression 
used is not ra aX\a or Ta XotTrd, but 
TO. navra eKTicrdr] — words which are 
absolute and comprehensive, and will 
admit no exception. 

ev avTcp] 'in Him,' as below ver. 
17 ev avToi cruveaTrjuev. For the pre- 
position comp. Acts xvii. 28 ev awrw 
•yap C^p^ev koL Kivovp,eda Kai ecrp-ev. 
All the laws and purposes which 
guide the creation and government 
of the Universe reside in Him, the 
Eternal Word, as their meeting-point. 
The Apostolic doctrine of the Logos 
teaches us to regard the Eternal 
Word as holding the same relation to 
the Universe which the Incarnate 
Christ holds to the Church. He is 
the soiu*ce of its life, the centre of all 
its developments, the mainspring of 
all its motions. The use of iv to 
describe His relations to the Church 
abounds in St Paul (e.g. Rom. viii. i, 
2, xii. 5, xvi. 3, 7, 9, etc., i Cor. I 30, 
iv. 15, 17, vii. 39, XV. 18, 22, etc.), and 
more especially in the Epistles to the 
Colossians and Ephesians (e.g. below 
ii. 7, 10). In the present passage, as 
in ver. 17, the same preposition is 
applied also to His relations to the 
Universe; comp. Joh. 1. 4 iv avrco 
(cofj ^v (more especially if we connect 
the preceding o yiyovev with it) 

1. 16] 



ev TOts ovpavoL'i kul [toc^ eirl rfj^ 7^?j Tct opuTa kul to. 

Thus it is part of the parallelism 
which runs through the whole pas- 
sage, and to which the occurrence of 
TvpoTOTOKos in both relations gives the 
key. The Judseo- Alexandrian teachers 
represented the Logos, which in their 
view was nothing more than the 
Divine mind energizing, as the ronos 
where the eternal ideas, the votjtos 
Koa-fios, had their abode ; Philo de 
Mund. Op. 4 (l. p. 4) oaanep ev eKeiva 
voTjTa, lb. § 5 (p. 4) ouSe o in tcov Ibeiiu 
Kocrp-os aWov av f'xot tqttov rj top 
deiov \6yov tov ravra diaKoafirjcravTa, 
ib. § 10 (p. 8) 6 aadnaTos nocTfios... 
i8pv6e\s iv rc5 delo) \oy(a ; and see 
especially de Migr. Abr. i (i. p. 437) 

OLKos €V d) StairSrai . . . oo-a av evOvp-rj- 
fiara TeKfj, us erne p ev oiko) rc5 Xoyco Sta- 
tely. The Apostolic teaching is an 
enlargement of this conception, inas- 
much as the Logos is no longer a 
philosophical abstraction but a Di- 
vine Person : see Hippol. Hcer. x. 

33 oItlov toIs yivofjievois Aoyos ^v, ev 
eavTO) (pepoiv to BeKeiv tov yeyevvrj- 
KOTOS- .-ex^ei ev eavTco tqs ev rw Trarpt 
npoevvorjdeio'as I8eas oOev KeXevovTos 
TTUTpos ylveaOuL KOdjiov to kutu ev Ao- 
yos dneTeXelTO dpecTKOiv Qea : COmp. 
Orig. in loann. i. § 22, iv. p. 21. 

eKTiadr]] The aorist is used here; 
the perfect below. 'EktiV^;? describes 
the definite historical act of creation ; 
iKTia-TM the continuous and present 
relations of creation to the Creator : 
conip. Joh. i. 3 xa)p\s avTov eyeveTO 
ov8e ev with ib. o -ye-yoi/f j/, I Cor. ix. 22 
eyevojiriv toIs da-Oeveaiv dddevrjs with 
ib. Tols naaiv yeyova wavTa, 2 Cor. xii. 
17 fXT] Tiva (ovdnea-TaXKa with ver. 18 
Ka\(TVvaTre(TTe i\a tov d8eX<f)6v, I Joh. 
iv. 9 '''°'' P'OVoyevTj dneaTaXKev 6 
Qeos els tov Koafiov Iva ^■qa-cop.ev 8i av- 
Tov with ver. 10 oti avTos i^yanTjcrev 
tj/xas KOI arreo'Te i\ev tov vlov avTov. 

Tfli navTa] ' the universe of things,' 
not TvdvTa 'all things severally,' but 
ranavTa 'all things collectively.' With 
very few exceptions, wherever this 

phrase occurs elsewhere, it stands in a 
similar connexion; see below, vv. 17, 
20, iii, II, Rom. xL 36, i Cor. viii. 6, 
xi. 12, xii. 6, XV. 27, 28, 2 Cor. v. 18, 
Eph. i. 10, II, 23, iv. 10, Heb. 1. 3, 
ii. 8, Rev. iv. 1 1. Compare Rom. viii. 
32 TO. TrdvTa T) ;^aptVerai, 2 Cor. iv. 
15 Ta ndvTa 81 vp,as, with I Cor. iii. 
22 clVe K6ap.os...viiav ; and PhiL iii. 8 

TO. rrdvTa e^rjiiia>6r]v with Matt. Xvi. 
26 eav TOV KOCTfiov oXov Kep^f]arj. Thus 
it will appear that to. navTa is nearly 
equivalent to 'the universe.' It 
stands midway between irdvra and to 
ndv. The last however is not a scrip- 
tural phrase; for, while with to irdvTa 
it involves the idea of connexion, it 
suggests also the unscriptural idea of 
self-contained unity, the gi'eat world- 
soul of the Stoic pantheist. 

ev To'is ovpavols k.t.X.] This division 
of the universe is not the same with 
the following, as if [to] ev to2s ovpavols 
were equivalent to tu dopaTa and [to | 
em TTJs yrjs to to. opara. It should 
rather be compared mth Gen. i. i 
eTToiTfcrev 6 Qeos tov ovpavov Koi ttjv 
yrjv, ii. I (TvveTeXi(rdr)(Tav 6 ovpavos Koi 
■q yrj Koi ttSs 6 Koapos avrSv, xiv. 19 
OS eKTiaev tov ovpavov Ka\ t^v yfjv, 
Rev. X. 6 OS eKTLdev TOV ovpavov Ka\ 
TO. ev avToi Ka\ ttjv yrjv Ka\ Ta ev avTjj. 
It is a classification by locality, as the 
other is a classification by essences. 
Heaven and earth together com- 
prehend all space; and all things 
whether material or immaterial are 
conceived for the purposes of the 
classification as having their abode in 
space. Thus the sun and the moon 
would belong to opard, but they would 
be ev TOIS ovpavols ; while the human 
soul would be classed among dopuTa 
but would be regarded as eVl rfjs yrjs ; 
see below ver. 20. 

It is difficult to say whether Ta...Td 
sliould be expunged or retained. The 
elements in the decision are ; (i) The 
faciUty either of omission or of ad- 
dition in the first clause, owing to the 



[I. i6 

dopUTUy €'lT6 dpOVOL eLT6 KUpiOTtlTe^, 6LT6 dp^ul €lTe 

termination of navTa : (2) The much 
greater authority for the omission in 
the first clause than in the second. 
These two combined suggest that to 
was omitted accidentally in the first 
clause, aud then expunged purposely 
in the second for the sake of uni- 
formity. On the other hand there is 
(3) The possibility of insertion in both 
cases either for the sake of gram- 
matical completeness or owing to the 
parallel passages, ver. 20, Ephes. i. 10. 
On the whole the reasons for their 
omission preponderate. At all events 
wo can hardly retain the one without 
the other. 

ra opara k.t.X.] 'Things material 
aud immaterial,' or, according to the 
language of philosophy, (fiaivofifva and 
vovfieva : comp, Plato Phccd. 79 a 
doifiev ovv, et ySouXtt, €(f)T], 8vo e'lSrj tSp 
ovTUVf To flip oparov, to 8e deidei, k.t.X. 

etre K.r.X.] ' ichether they he thrones 
or lordshij)s, etc' The subdivision is 
no longer exhaustive. The Apostle 
singles out those created beings that 
from their superior rank had been or 
might be set in rivalry with the Son. 

A comparison vrith the parallel 
passage Ephes. i. 21, vufpavw ttckttjs 
dpxvs Koi f^ovaias Koi Swdpecos koI 
Kvpc6rj]Tos KoX TvavTos K.r.X., brings out 
the following points : 

(i) No stress can be laid on the 
sequence of the names, as though St 
Paul wore enunciating with authority 
some precise doctrine respecting the 
grades of the celestial hierarchy. The 
names themselves are not the same 
in the two passages. While apxri, f^- 
ovaia, KvpioTTjs, ai'e commou to both, 
dpovos is peculiar to the one and 
8vvap.i.s to the other. Nor again is 
there any correspondence in the se- 
quence. Neither does Svvapus take 
the place of 6p6pos, nor do the three 
worcL commou to both appear in the 
same order, the sequence being dpx- 
e^. [8vv.] Kvp. in Eph. i. 21, and [dp6v.] 
Kvp. dpx. (^. hero. 

(2) An expression in Eph. i. 21 
shows the Apostle's motive in intro- 
ducing these lists of names : for he 
there adds koI navros ovoftaros ovo- 
fia^op.ivov ov p.6vov iv rat aloivi tovto) 
dX\d KoX iv ra peKXovTi,, i.e. ' of every 
dignity or title (whether real or imagi- 
nary) which is reverenced,' etc.; for 
this is the force of navros 6v6p.aTos 
6vop.aCopivov (see the notes on Phil. 
ii. 9, and Eph. I.e.). Hence it appeal's 
that in this catalogue St Paul does 
not profess to describe objective 
realities, but contents himself with 
repeating subjective opinions. He 
brushes away all these speculations 
without enquiring how much or how 
little truth there may be in them, 
because they are altogether beside 
the question. His language hero 
shows the same spirit of impatience 
with this elaborate angelology, as in 
ii. 18. 

(3) Some commentators have re- 
ferred the terms used here solely 
to earthly potentates and dignities. 
There can be little doubt however 
that tlicir chief and primary reference 
is to the orders of the celestial hier- 
archy, as conceived by these Gnostic 
Judaizers. This appears from the con- 
text ; for the words to. dopara imme- 
diately precede this list of terms, while 

in the mention of jrai/ t6 7rX»;p<a;xa 

and in other expressions the Apostle 
clearly contemplates the rivalry of 
spiritiial powers with Christ. It is 
also demanded by the whole design 
and purport of the letter, which is 
written to combat the worship paid to 
angels. The names too, more especially 
dpovoi, are especially connected with 
the speculations of Jewish angelology. 
But when this is granted, two questions 
still remain. First; are evil as well as 
good spirits included, demons as well 
as angels? And next; though the 
primary reference is to spiritual 
powers, is it not possible that the 
expression was intended to be compre- 

I. 1 6] 



hensive aud to include earthly dignities 
as well? The clause added iu the 
parallel passage, ov ^6vov iv tw almvi 
TovTta K.T.X., encourages us thus to 
extend the Apostle's meaning ; and we 
are led in the same direction by the 
comprehensive words which have pre- 
ceded here, [to] ev ro'is ovpavols 
K.T.X. Nor is there anything in the 
terms themselves which bars such an 
extension; for, as will be seen, the 
combination dpxai koI i^ova-'ua is 
applied not only to good angels but 
to bad, not only to spiritual powers 
but to earthly. Compare Ignat. 
Smyrn. 6 rot enovpavia Koi iq 86^a rav 
ciyyeXcov Koi 01 ap)(0VTfs oparoi re (cat 

Thus guided, we may paraphrase 
the Apostle's meaning as follows : 
' You dispute much about the succes- 
sive gi'ades of angels; you distinguish 
each grade by its special title ; you 
can tell how each order was generated 
from the preceding; you assign to 
each its proper degree of worship. 
Meanwhile you have ignored or you 
have degraded Christ. I tell you, it 
is not so. He is first and foremost, 
Lord of heaven and earth, far above 
all thrones or dominations, all prince- 
doms or powers, far above every 
dignity and every potentate — whether 
earthly or heavenly — whether angel 
or demon or man — that evokes your 
reverence or excites your fear.' See 
above, pp. 10 1 sq. 

Jewish and Judseo-Christiau specu- 
lations respecting the grades of the 
celestial hierarchy took various forms. 
In the Testaments of tlie Twelve 
Patriarchs (Levi 3), which as coming 
near to the Apostolic age supplies a 
valuable illustration (see Galatians 
p. 307 sq.), these orders are arranged 
as follows : ( I ) 6p6voi,, e^ovarlai, these 
two in the highest or seventh heaven ; 
(2) ol ayyeXoi 01 (jjepovres ras iItvo- 
Kpiatts Tois ayyeXois rov TrpocrcoTTov in 
the sixth heaven ; (3) ol ay-yeXot rov 
npoacoTTOv in the fifth heaven ; (4) ol 
dyioi in the fourth heaven ; (5) al 8vvd- 

p,eis Tciv Tvapfp^oXooi' in the third 
heaven ; (6) to. irvevfiara rdv inayoiyav 
(i.e. of visitations, retributions) in the 
second heaven : or perhaps the denizens 
of the sixth and fifth heavens, (2) and 
(3), should be transposed. The lowest 
heaven is not peopled by any spirits. 
In Origen de Princ. i. 5. 3, ib. i. 6. 
2, I. pp. 66, 70 (comp. i. 8. i, ib. p. 74), 
we have five classes, which are given 
in an ascending scale in this order; 
(i) angels {sancti angeli, ra^is ayye- 
\iKrj) ; (2) princedoms {principatus, 
dvyapLis apx^^, apxai) ; (3) powers {po- 
testates, e'^ovcriai); (4) thrones {throni 
vcl sedes, dpovoi); (5) dominations 
{dominationes, KvpioT-qres) ; though 
elsewhere, in loann. 1. § 34, iv. p. 34, 
he seems to have a somewhat differ- 
ent classification in view. In Ephrom 
Syrus Op. Syr. i. p. 270 (where the 
translation of Benedctti is altogether 
faulty and misleading) the ranks are 

these: (l) 6eoi, 6p6voi, Kvpiorrjres; (2) 
apxayyekoL,a.pxo-h^kov(Tiai.; (3) ayyeXoi, 
8vvdp.fis, x^povjUp,, (repa^i/i; these three 
great divisions being represented by 
the ;(iXi'a/)_;^ot, the fKarovTapxoif and the 
TrevTTjKovTapxoi respectively in Deut. i. 
15, on which passage he is comment- 
ing. The general agreement between 
these will be seen at once. This 
grouping also seems to underlie the 
conception of Basil of Seleucia Orat. 
39 (p. 207), who mentions them in this 
order ; 6p6voi, KvpioTTjTfs, dpxal, i^- 
ovalai, 8vvap,fi,s, ;(epovj3t/Xj afpa(f)ifi. 
On the other hand the aiTangement of 
the pscudo-Dionysius, who so largely 
influenced subsequent speculations, 
is quite different aud probably later 
(Dion. Areop. Op. i. p. 75, ed. Cord.); 
(l) dpovoi, x^pov^ifi, aepafpip.; (2) e'^ou- 
(Tiai, Kvptorrjrey, 8vvap€is; (3) S.yyeXoi, 
dpxayyfXoi, dpxal. But the earlier 
lists for the most part seem to 
suggest as their common foundation a 
classification in which dpovoi, KvpioTij- 
T€s, belonged to the highest order, and 
dpxai, f^ovaiai to the next below- 
Thus it would appear that the Apo- 
stle takes as an illustration the titles 



[I. i6 


ef-ov(riai' tu iravra 


avTOv Kai 6is avTOv eKTio'Tai' 

assigned to the two highest grades in 
a system of the celestial hierarchy 
which he found current, and which 
probably was adopted by these Gnos- 
tic Judaizers. See also the note on 
ii. 1 8. 

6p6voi] In all systems alike these 
'thrones' belong to the highest grade 
of angelic beings, whose place is iu 
the immediate presence of God. The 
meaning of the name however is 
doubtful : (i) It may signify the occu- 
pants of thrones which surround the 
throne of God; as in the imagery of 

Rev. iv. 4 KVKkodev Tov Opovov dpovoi 
(Ikocti Teacrapes (comp. xi. 1 6, XX. 4). 
The imagery is there taken from the 
court of an earthly king : see Jer. Hi. 
32. This is the interpretation given 
by Origeu de Princ. i. 5. 3 (p. 66), i. 
6, 2 (p. 70) 'judicandi vel regendi... 
habentes oflBcium.' Or (2) They were 
so called, as supporting or forming 
t/ie throne of God; just as the chariot- 
seat of the Almighty is represented 
as resting on the cherubim in Ezek. 
L 26, ix. 3, X. I sq., xi. 22, Ps. xviii. 10, 
I Chron. xxviii. 18. So apparently 
Clem. Alex. Proph. Eel. 57 (p. ioot,) 

dpovoi au eiei/. ..Sia to ava-navicrOai iv 

avTois TOV Qiov. From this same 
imagery of the prophet the later mys- 
ticism of the Kabbala derived its 
name 'wheels,' which it gave to one 
of its ten orders of Sephiroth. Adopt- 
ing this interpretation, several fathers 
identify the 'thrones' with the che- 
rubim : e.g. Greg. Nyss. c. Eunoin. 
i (n. p. 349 sq.), Chrysost. de Incompr. 
Nat. iii. 5 (i. p. 467), Theodoret {ad 
luc.), August, in Psalm, xcviii. § 3 
(IV. p. 1 061). This explanation was 
adopted also by the pseudo-Dionysius 
de (Joel. Hier. 7 (i. p. 80), without how- 
ever identifying them with the cheru- 
bim ; and through his wi'itings it came 
to be generally adopted. The former 
interpretation however is more pro- 
bable; for (i) The highly symbolical 
character of the latter accords better 

with a later stage of mystic speculation, 
hke the Kabbala; and (2) It seems 
best to treat Opovoi as belonging to the 
same category with KvpLOTTjTes, ap\ai, 
e^ovaiat, which are concrete words 
borrowed from different grades of 
human rank and power. As implying 
regal dignity, 6p6vot natm-aUy stands 
at the head of the list. 

KvpioTTjTis] 'dominations,^ aa Ephes. 
i. 21. These appear to have been re- 
garded as belonging to the first grade, 
and standing next in dignity to the 
dpovoi. This indeed would be sug- 
gested by their name. 

apxai, e^ovalai] as Ephes. i. 21. 
These two words occur very frequently 
together. In some places they refer 
to human dignities, as Luke xii. 11, 
Tit. iii. I (comp. Luke xx. 20); in 
others to a spiritual hierarchy. And 
here again there are two different 
uses : sometimes they designate good 
angels, e.g. below ii. 10, Ephes. iii. 10; 
sometimes evil spirits, e.g. ii. 15, 
Ephes. vi. 12 : while in one passage at 
least (i Cor. xv. 24) both may be in- 
cluded. In Rom. viii. 38 we have dp- 
Xal without e^ova-iai (except as a v. I.), 
and in i Pet. iii. 22 i^ovaiai without 
apxai, in connexion with the angelic 

St' avTov K.T.X.] 'As all creation 
passed out from Him, so does it all con- 
verge again towards Him.' For the 
combination of prepositions see Rom. 
xi. 36 «^ avTov Ka\ 81 avTOv Kal els uv- 
Tov TO. ndvTa. He is not only the a but 
also the 00, not only the dpxn but also 
the TfXos of creation, not only the first 
but also the last in the history of 
the Universe: Rev. xxii. 13. For 
this double relation of Christ to the 
Universe, as both the initial and the 
final cause, see Heb. ii. 10 81' 6v to. 
navra Koi 81 ov ra navra, where 81 6v 
is nearly equivalent to ds avTov of the 

In the Judaic philosophy of Alex- 
andria the preposition 8id with the 

I. 17] 



'7/<:a^ auros ecTTiv Trpo TravTcov, kul ra iravra ev avTto 

genitive was commonly used to de- 
scribe the function of the Logos in 
the creation and government of the 
world; e.g. de Cherub. 35 (i. p. 162) 
where Philo, enumerating the causes 
which combine in the work of Crea- 
tion, describes God as vcpi' ov, matter 
as e^ ov, aud the Word as Si' ov ; 
comp. de 3fon. ii. 5 (11. p. 225) Xoyof... 

81' ov (TvnTTas o k6(T)xos fBrjuiovpyelro. 

The Christian Apostles accepted this 
use of S(a to describe the mediatorial 
function of the Word in creation ; e.g. 

John i. 3 Trdvra 81 avTov eyevero k.t.X., 
ib. ver. 10 6 Kocr/ios 81 avrov iyevero, 
Heb. i. 2 Si' ov Kal i7ToiT](Tev tovs 
alavas. This mediatorial function 
however has entirely changed its 
character. To the Alexandrian Jew it 
was the work of a passive tool or instru- 
ment {de Clierub. I.e. 81' ov, to ipya- 
\elov, ov); but to the 
Christian Apostle it represented a 
cooperating agent. Hence the Alex- 
andrian Jew frequently and consist- 
ently used the simple instrumental 
dative m to describe the relation of 
the Word to the Creator, e.g. Quod 
Deus immut. 12 (i. p. 281) <a Ka\ tov 
Koa-fiov flpya^€To, Leg. All. i. 9 (i 
p. 47) '"^ irepicfiupfaTdTco Kol rrjXavye- 
(TTaTO) iavTov \oyco pijpari 6 Qeos dp- 
(fiorepa rroiel, comp. ib. iii. 31 (l. p. 106) 
o \oyos...a Kaddnep opydvco irpocr^p-q- 
(rdfievos. This mode of speaking is not 
found in the New Testament. 

els avTov] 'unto Him.' As of the 
Father it is said elsewhere, i Cor. viii. 
6 6^ ov ra Travra koI i]fifls els avrov, 
SO here of the Son we read rd Trdvra 

Si' avTov Kal els avrov. All things 

must find their meeting-point, their re- 
conciliation, at length in Him from 
whom they took their rise — in the 
Word as the mediatorial agent, and 
through the Word in the Father as 
the primary source. The Word is 
the final cause as well as the creative 
agent of the Universe. This ultimate 
goal of the present dispensation in 

time is similarly stated in several pas- 
sages. Sometimes it is represented 
as the birth-throe and deliverance of 
all creation through Christ ; as Rom. 
viii. 19 sq. avrfj 77 ktIo-is i\ev6epa)6r}- 
aerai, Trdaa /; KTi(ns...crvvco8lveL. Some- 
times it is the absolute and final sub- 
jection of universal nature to Him; 
as I Cor. XV. 28 orav inroTayjj avra 
rd ndvra. Sometimes it is the recon- 
ciliation of all things through Him ; as 
below, ver. 20 Si' avrov diroKaToXXd^ai 

rd irdvra. Sometimes it is the reca- 
pitulation, tlie gathering up in one 
head, of the Universe ili Him; as 

Ephes. i. 10 dva<e^aKai(i)<ja(x6at rd 

Trdvra iv tw Xpio-Tw. The image in- 
volved in this last passage best illus- 
trates the particular expression in the 
text els aiiTov eKTiarai ; but all alike 
enunciate the same truth in different 
terms. The Eternal Word is the goal 
of the Universe, as He was the starting- 
point. It must end in unity, as it 
proceeded from unity : and the centre 
of this unity is Christ. This expres- 
sion has no parallel, and could have 
none, in the Alexandrian phraseology 
and doctrine. 

17. Kal avTos K.r.X.] ^and HE IS 
before all things' : comp. Job. viii. 58 
nplv 'AjSpaa/i yeviaOai, eyco elp\ (and 
perhaps also viii. 24, 28, xiii. 19). The 
imperfect iji/ might have sufiBced 
(comp. Joh. i. i), but the present I'cttii' 
declares that this pre-existence is 
absolute existence. The aytoc €CTIN 
here corresponds exactly to the eroo 
eiMl in St John, and this again is illus- 
trated by Exod. iii. 14. The verb there- 
fore is not an enclitic, but should be ac- 
centuated e(TTLv. 'StQe^AsHadv.Eunom. 
iv (l. p. 294) o dirooToKos elnoav, Udma 
Si' avTov Koi els avTov eKTiarai, a(peiX.ev 
elnelv, Kal avTos iyevero Trpo Trdvrav, 
elirasv be, Kal avros eort Tvpo Travrav, 
edei^e rov pev del ovra rr}v Se Kriariu 
yevopevj]v. The avros is as necessary 
for the completeness of the meaning, 



[I. 1 8 

<Tvve(TTt]Kev . ^^Kal avros ecTTiv t) K6(pa\t] rov crw- 

as the eoTii/. The one emphasizes the 
personality, as the other declares the 
2^re-Gxislence. For this emphatic av- 
t6s see again ver. i8; comp. Ephes. 
ii. 14, iv. 10, II, I Joh. ii. 2, and esp. 
Rev. xix. 15 Ka\ uvTos TTOi^apd-.-Koi 
avTos iraTel. The other interpretation 
which explains irpo navrav of superi- 
ority in rank, and not of priority in 
time, is mitenablo for several reasons. 
(i) This would most naturally be ex- 
pressed otherwise in Biblical language, 
as eVi TrajTui/ (e.g. Rom. ix. 5, Eph. iv. 
6), or vTvep navra (Eph. i. 22), or vrrep- 
aua> navrav (Eph. i. 21, iv. lo). (2) 
The key to tlie interpretation is given 
by the analogous words in the con- 
text, esp. nptoTOTOKos, vv. 15, 18. (3) 
Nothing short of this declaration of 
absolute pre-existence would be ade- 
quate to introduce the statement 
which follows, Kal TO. Tvavra iv aiira 


TTpo T:avTa>v] ' before all things.^ In 
the Latin it was translated ' ante 
omnes,' i.e thrones, dominationcs, etc. ; 
and so TertuUian adv. Marc. v. 19 
'Quomodo euim ante omnes, si non 
ante omnia? Quomodo ante omnia, 
si non primogcnituscouditionis?' But 
the neuter to. iravra, standing in the 
context before and after, requires the 
neuter here also. 

avvea-TTjicfv] ' hold together, cohere.' 
He is the principle of cohesion in the 
universe. He impresses upon creation 
that unity and solidarity which makes 
it a cosmos instead of a chaos. Thus 
(to take one instance) the action of 
gravitation, which keeps in their places 
things fixed and regulates the mo- 
tions of things moving, is an expres- 
sion of His mind. Similarly in Heb. 
i. 3 Christ the Logos is described as 
cbeocov TO. napra {sustaining the Uni- 
verse) Tco pi^fiari Trjs dvvapecos avrov. 
Here again the Christian Apostles 
accept the language of Alexandrian 
Judaism, which describes the Logos 
as the 8eo-/ios of the Universe; e.g. 

Philo de Profug. 20 (i. p. 562) re 
yap Tov UVTOS Xoyos Setr/xos (ov rmv 
a7ravTci)V...Ka\ crvvix^i' ^a /^fp7 iravra 
KOI acfiiyyei koi KwXvei avra dioKvecrdai 
Kal biapraa-Oai, de Plant. 2 (X. p. 33 1) 
(Tvvay a>v to. fiepr] iravra koL <T(f>iyyc>)v' 
8e(Tp.6v yap avrov appr]KT0V tov ttovtos 
6 yevvi^aas enoUi Tranj'p, Quis rer. div. 
her. 38 (l. p. 507) Xoyo) a-(piyyeTai dfi<p' 
<oXXa yap eVrt koi decrpos ovtos tii 
navra r^s ovcrias eKTreTrXrjpcoKcos : and 
for the word itself see Quis rer. div. 
her. 12 (l. p. 481) avvfarrjKf Ka\ f<a- 
nvpeirai npovoia Qfov, Clem. Rom. 27 
eV Xoyco rfji peyaKaicrvvqs avrov a~vve- 
cmia-aro to. navra. In the same con- 
nexion avyKfirai Is used, Ecclus. xliii. 
26. The indices to Plato and Aristotle 
amply illustrate this use of avvearrjKfv. 
This mode of expression was common 
with the Stoics also. 

18. 'And not only does lie hold 
this position of absolute priority and 
sovereignty over the Universe — the 
natural creation. He stands also in 
the same relation to the Church — 
the new spiritual creation. He is its 
head, and it is His body. This is Hi.s 
prerogative, because He is the source 
and the beginning of its life, being 
the First-born from the dead. Thus 
in all things — in the spiritual order as 
in the natural — in the Church as in 
the World — He is found to have the 

The elevating influence of this 
teaching on the choicest spirits of the 
subapostolic age will be seen from 
a noble passage in the noblest of 
early Christian writings, Epist. ad 
Diogn. § 7 rov \6yov rbv ayiov...dv- 
dpconois (vi8pvcr€...ov, Kadanep av Tis 
(iKaaeiev, dvOpwirois vnrjptrrjv riva nep.- 
■\p-as 77 dyyeXov r/ ap)(ovra ij riva rav 
dienovrmv rii iniyeia rj riva rutv neivKT- 
rfvpiv<t>v ras iv ovpavols BioiKfjaeis, aXX 
avrov rov rex.virTjv kol brjpiovpyov ra>v 
v\(ov...m navra diareraKrai Koi 8i(opi(r- 
rai Ka\ vnoriraKrai, ovpavo\ icai fa ei 

I. 1 8] 



/uaTOS, Tf]9 eKK\t](rias' 6s earTLv dp^tj, 'iTfjcoTOTOKO^ 

Tols ovpavois, yfj Koi ra iv rfj yrj k.t.X. 
See the whole context. 

Koi avToi] 'and He,' repeated from 
the preceding verse, to emphasize the 
identity of the Person who unites in 
Himself these prerogatives : see on 
vor. 17, and comp. ver. 18 avros, ver. 
19 81 avTov. The Creator of the 
World is also the Head of the Church. 
There is no bhnd ignorance, no im- 
perfect sympathy, no latent conflict, in 
the relation of tlie demiurgic power 
to the Gospel dispensation, as the 
heretical teachers were disposed con- 
sciously or unconsciously to assume 
(see above, p. 99 sq., p. 108 sq.), but 
an absolute unity of origin. 

»7 ice<Pa\^] 'the head,' the inspiring, 
ruling, guiding, combining, sustaining 
power, the mainspring of its activity, 
the centre of its unity, and the seat 
of its life. In his earlier eijistles the 
relations of the Church to Christ are 
described under the same image (i 
Cor. xii. 12 — 27; conl'p. vi 15, x. 17, 
llom. xii. 4 sq.) ; but the Apostle 
there takes as his starting-point the 
various functions of the members, and 
not, as in these later epistles, the 
originating and controling power of 
the Head. Comp. i. 24, ii. 19, Eph. 
i. 22 sq., ii. 16, iv. 4, 12, 15 sq., v. 23, 30. 

TTjs eKKXrja-Las] in apposition with 
Tov ardnaros : Comp. 1. 24 tov (rcoixaros 
avTOV, o icTTiv rj fKKkr^ala, Eph. i. 23. 

dpxn\ 'the origin, the beginning.' 
The term is hero applied to the In- 
carnate Christ in relation to the 
Church, because it is applicable to 
the Eternal Word in relation to the 
Universe, Rev, iii. 14 ?; apx^ ttjs ktI- 
aeas tov Qeov. The parallelism of tiie 
two relations is kept in view through- 
out. The word apxq here involves 
two ideas : ( i) Priority in time ; Christ 
was the first-finiits of the dead, anapxi] 
(i Cor. XV. 20, 23): (2) Originating 
power; Christ was also the source of 
Ufe, Acts iii. 140 apxiryos ttjs C^^fjs ; 
comp. Acts V. 31, Heb. ii. 10. He is 

not merely the principium princi- 
piatum but the ■principium jrrinci- 
pians (see Trench Epistles to the 
Seven Churches p. 183 sq.). He rose 
first from the dead, that others might 
rise through Him. 

The word ap-xj], like np(3roi (seo 
the note on Phil, i. 5), being absolute 
in itself, does not require the definite 
article. Indeed the article is most 
commonly omitted where apx*? occurs 
as a predicate, as will appear from 
several examples to be gathered from 
the extracts in Plut. Mor. p. 875 sq., 
Stoh. Eel. PhysA. 10. i2sq. Comp. also 
Aristot. Met. x. 7, p. 1064, to delov... 
av et7 TrpcoTT] kqi KvpiaTarr] apx^J, Onatas 
in Stob. Eel. Phys. i. 2. 39 ai/Voy yap 
[Oeoy] apxp- Kai ■Kpcnov, Tatian. ad 
Ch'cec. 4 Qfos...p.6vo^ dvapxos wj/ koi 
avTos VTrapxoiv twv oXoiv dp^tj, Clem. 
Alex. Strom, iv. 25, p. 638, 6 Qeos Se 
avapxo?,apx^Tav oXwu iravTeKris, dpxjjs 
TToirjTiKos, Method, de Great. 3 (p. 100, 

ed. Jahn) ■n-da-rjs dpfTrjs dpXTjv Kul nrj- 
y^v...ijyfi TOP Oeov, pseudo-Dionys*. 
de Div. Nom. v. § 6 dp-xj] ydp eVri tUv 
OPT03V, § 10 iravTcov ovv apx^l fat TfXev- 


The text is read with the definite 
article, i] dpx^], in one or two excel- 
lent authorities at least; but the ob- 
vious motive which would lead a 
scribe to aim at greater distinctness 
renders the reading suspicious. 

npoiTOTOKos^ Comp. Rev. i. 5 6 rrpa- 
TOTOKOi T(Sv veKpmv Koi 6 dpxcov twv 
^a(TiXe<ov TTJs yrjs. His resurrection 
from the dead is His title to the 
headship of the Church ; for ' the 
power of His resurrection ' (Phil, iii 
10) is the life of the Church, Such 
passages as Gen. xlix. 3, Deut. xxi. 17, 
where the nparoroKos is called dpxrj 
T€KPwv and superior privileges are 
claimed for him as such, must neces- 
sarily be only vei7 faint and partial 
illustrations of the connexion between 
dpxq and npcoroTOKos here, whore the 
subject-matter and the whole context 



[I. 19 

e'fc Twi/ VEKpcoUj \va yevrjTai eV Trdoriv cwto^ npaiTevcov 
^'^OTL kv auTM 6u^0Kt](Tei/ TTav TO TrXrjpcojULa KaTOiKrj- 

point to a fuller meaning of the words. 

The words npcoToroKOS ck rav vfKpa>v 
here correspond to TrpcoToro/cor Traarjs 
KTicreas ver. 1 5, SO that the parallelism 
between Christ's relations to the Uni- 
verse and to the Chm"ch is thus em- 

iva yevrjTm k.t.X.] As He IS first 

with respect to the Universe, so it 
was ordained that He should become 
first with respect to the Church as 
well. The yevrjTai here answers in a 
manner to the ea-Tiv of ver. 17. Thus 
fcrnv and yevrjrai are contrasted as 
the absolute being and the histo- 
rical manifestation. The relation be- 
tween Christ's headship of the Uni- 
verse by virtue of His Eternal God- 
head and His headship of the Church 
by virtue of His Incarnation and 
Passion and Resurrection is some- 
what similarly represented in Phil. ii. 
6sq. €v fiop(f)TJ Qfov v7rdpx<>yy---fJ-op(f)T]v 
SovXov \a^u>v...y(v6p.ivos vttijkoos fiexP' 
0avaTov..-8io Kal 6 Geo? avTov vnepv- 
■^axrev k.t.X. 

iv Tva(Tiv\ 'in all things' not in the 
Universe only but in the Church 
also. Kat yap, writes Theodoret, <os 
6«of, Trpo TrdvTwv earl Koi crvv rw narpL 

fCTTl, Kal (Oi dvdpcOTTOS, TrpcjTOTOKOS fK 

rwv vfKpaiv Koi tov a-cop-aros KfcfiaXi]. 
Thus eV naaiv is neuter and not mas- 
culine, as it is sometimes taken. Ei- 
ther construction is grammatically 
correct, but the context points to the 
former interpretation here; and this 
is the common use of eV waaiv, e. g. 
iii. II, Eph. i. 23, Phil. iv. 12. For 
the neuter compare Plut. 3Ior. p. 9 
anevbovTes tovs naidas (v Tzaai raxiov 
irpcoTfixrai. On the other hand in 
[Demosth.] Amat. p. 1416 Kpano-Tov 
eivai TO Trpcoreveti' dv airacri the context 
shows that anaa-i is masculine. 

avTos] 'He Himself; see the note 
on Kat avTos above. 

19, 20. 'And this absolute supre- 

macy is His, because it was the 
Father's good pleasure that in Him 
all the plenitude of Deity should have 
its home; because He willed through 
Him to reconcile the Universe once 
more to Himself It was God's pur- 
pose to effect peace and harmony 
through the blood of Christ's cross, 
and so to restore all things, whatso- 
ever and wheresoever they be, whe- 
ther on the earth or in the heavens.' 

19. oTi iv ai)ra) (c.r.X.] The eternal 
indweUing of the Godhead explains 
the headship of the Church, not less 
than the headship of the Universe. 
The resurrection of Christ, whereby 
He became the dpxr) of the Church, 
was the result of and the testimony to 
His deity; Rom. i. 4 tov opia-Oevroi 
viov Qeov...e^ dvacTTdaeoos veKpav. 

fvBoKrja-fv] sc. o Geor, the nomina- 
tive being understood ; see Winer 
§ Iviii. p. 655 sq., § Ixiv. p. 735 sq.; 
comp. James i. 12 (the right reading), 
iv. 6. Here the omission is the more 
easy, because evdoKia, evSoKf'ip etc. (like 
6eXT)p.a), are used absolutely of God's 
good purpose, e.g. Luke ii. 14 iv dv- 
OpwTTOLs tvboKias (or evSoKt'u), Phil. ii. 
13 vnep TTji fvboKiai, Clem. Rom. § 40 
ndvTa TO. yivofieva iv etJSoKT^crei; see the 
note on Clem. Rom. § 2. For the ex- 
pression generally comp. 2 Mace. xiv. 

35 orv, Kvpt6, evSoKrjaas vaov Ttjs a-TJs 
KaTaiTKTjvcocrews iv i]pi'iv yevicrdai. The 
alternative is to consider irdv to ttXi;- 
poj/ia personified as the nominative ; 
but it is difficult to conceive St Paul 
so speaking, more especially as with 
euSoKijo-cj' personification would sug- 
gest personality. The n\rjp(opLa in- 
deed is personified in Clem. Alex. 
Exc. Theod. 43 (p. 979) awatviiravTOs 
Ka\ TOV n\T]p(opaTos, and in Iren. i. 2. 
6 ^ovXfj p.ia Koi yvcofiT] to irdv nXrjpwpa 
Tuv alwvwv K.T.Ti., i. 12. 4 Trai* to ttXt;- 
pa)p,a TjvdoKrjcrev [Si' avTov do^dcrai tov 
naTfpa.]; but the phraseology of the 




craij '°Ka\ Zl avTov aTroKaraWa^ai Ta iravra eU 

Valentinians, to which these passages 
refer, cannot be taken as an indica- 
tion of St Paul's usage, since their view 
of the TTkripafxa was wholly different. 
A third interpretation is found in 
TertulUan adv. Marc. v. 19, who trans- 
lates eV auVw in semetipso, taking 6 
Xpia-Tos as the nominative to evboKri- 
crev : and this construction is followed 
by some modem critics. But, though 
grammatically possible, it confuses 
the theology of the passage hope- 

TO TrXifpw/ia] 'the plenitude,' a re- 
cognised technical term in theology, 
denoting the totality of the Divine 
powers and attributes ; conip. ii. 9. 
See the detached note on irXtjpcofia. 
On the relation of this statement to 
the speculations of the false teach- 
ers at Colossse see the introduction, 
pp. 100,110. Another interi^retation, 
which explains to 7TXi]po)[ia as refer- 
ring to the Church (comp. Ephes. i. 
22), though adopted by several fathers, 
is unsuited to the context and has 
nothing to recomnieud it. 

KaTOLKTJaai] 'should have its per- 
manent abode.' The wordoccui-s again 
ill the same connexion, ii. 9. The 
false teachers probably, like their 
later counterj)arts, maintained only a 
partial and transient connexion of the 
TrXT^'pw/ia with the Lord. Hence St 
Paul declares in these two passages 
tliat it is not a irapoKia but a kutoi- 
KLcu The two words KaToiKelv, napoi- 
Kelv, occur in the lxx as the common 
renderings of IK^* and "lU respect- 
ively, and are distinguished as the 
permanent and the transitory ; e.g. 
Gen. xxxvi. 44 (xxxvii. i) KaraKei. 8e 

'laKw/3 eV T^ yfi ov napaKrjcrev 6 iraTrjp 
avToii iv yfi Xavaav (comp. Hos. X. 5), 
Philo Sacr. Ab. et Ca. 10 (i. p. 170 m) o 
rols iyicvKkiois [J.6vois fTravexfov napoiKfl 
(Tocjiia, ov KaToiKti, Greg. Naz. Oral. 
xiv (l p. 271 ed. Caillau) tIs Tfjv kotco 
aurivfiv Koi t^v ava iroXiv] tLs irapoi- 
Kiav Koi KoroiKiav ; comp. Orat. vii 

(i. p. 200). See also the notes on 
Ephes. ii. 19, and on Clem. Rom. i. 

20. The false teachers aimed at 
effecting a partial reconciliation be- 
tween God and man through the in- 
terposition of angelic mediators. The 
Apostle speaks of an absolute and 
complete reconcUiation of universal 
nature to God, effected through the 
mediation of the Incarnate Word. 
Their mediators were ineffective, be- 
cause they were neither human nor 
divine. The true mediator must bo 
both human and divine. It was 
necessary that in Him all the pleni- 
tude of the Godhead should dwell. 
It was necessaiy also that He should 
be bom into the world and should 
suffer as a man. 

St' avTov\ i.e. Tov Xpia-Toii, as ap- 
pears from the preceding e'l/ avr^, 
and the following Sta tov alfiuTos 
TOV (TTavpov avTov, 81 uvTov. This 
expression 81' avTov has been already 
applied to the Preincarnate Word in 
relation to the Universe (ver. 16); it 
is now used of the Incarnate Word in 
relation to the Church. 

dnoKaTaXka^ai] SC. evdoKTjcrfv 6 Qeos. 
The personal pronoun avTov, instead 
of the reflexive iavTov, is no real ob- 
stacle to this way of connecting the 
words (see the next note). The al- 
ternative would be to take to irXij- 
p(op.a as governing dnoKaTaXXa^ai, but 
this mode of expression is harsh and 

The same double compound oTroKUT- 
aXXddaeiv is used below, ver. 21 and 
Ephes. ii. 16, in place of the usual kgt- 
aWaaaeiv. It may be compared 
with dnoKaTaaTaarLs, Acts iii. 21. Ter- 
tullian, arguing against the dualism 
of Marcion who maintained an anta- 
gonism between the demiurge and the 
Christ, lays stress on the compound, 
adv. Hare. v. 19 'conciliari extraneo 
possent, reconciliari vero non alii 
quam suo.' The word dnoKaraKkaa-- 
(Tfiv corresponds to ciTrjjXXorpiwuei'ovs 




avTOV, eLpy]v07roLt](Ta'i oia tov aijuiaTO^ tov (TTavpov 
avTOv, di avTOu eire xa eV/ t^s yfjs eire Ta ev Tol^ 
ovpavohi ^^Kcti vfxd^ ttotc bvra^ d7n]X\oTpio3fievov<s kul 

here aud in Ephes. il i6, implying a 
restitution to a state from which they 
had fallen, or which was potentially 
theirs, or for which they were destined. 
Similarly St Augustine on Gal. iv. 5 
remarks that the word used of the 
viodfcria is not accipere (Xan^dveiv) 

but reclpere {anoKa^^avfiv). See the 
note there. 

TO. navTo] The whole universe of 
things, material as well as spiritual, 
shall be restored to harmony with 
God. How far this restoration of 
universal nature may be subjective, as 
involved in the changed perceptions 
of man thus brought into harmony 
with God, and how far it may have an 
objective and independent existence, 
it were vain to speculate. 

eis avTov] ' to Him,' i. 6. ' to Him- 
self The reconciliation is always 
represented as made to the Father. 
The reconciler is sometimes tlie Fa- 
ther Himself (2 Cor. v. 18, 19 tK tov 
Qeov Toil KaTuWd^avros ijfids euvTa 
fita Xpi(TTOv...Ofos Tjv ev XpKTTw Koa-fiov 
KnTaWdaa-cov tavTco), sometimes the 
Son (Ephes. ii. 16 : comp. Rom. v. 
10, 11). Excellent reasons are given 
(IJleek Hebr. 11. p. 69, A. Buttmann 
Gramm. p. 97) for supposing that the 
reflexive pronoun eavroii etc. is never 
contracted into avroO etc. in the 
Greek Testament. But at the same 
time it is quite clear that the oblique 
cases of the personal pronoim avras are 
there used very widely, and in cases 
where we should commonly find the 
reflexive pronoim in classical authors : 
e.g. Ephes. i. 4, 5 t^eXe^aro jfias... 
elvai Tjfias ayiovs koi dfi(op.ov<: Karevconiov 
avTnv...-n-poopiaas J;/ias- tls vlodeariav 
8ia ^Ir](rov Xpio-roi) fls avTov. See 
also the instances given in A. Butt- 
mann p. 98. It would seem indeed 
that avTov etc. may be used for iav- 

Tov etc. in almost every connexion, 
except where it is the direct object 
of the verb. 

fiprjvo7roii](ras] The word occui*s in 
the Lxx, Prov. x. 10, and in Hermes 
in Stob. Ed. Phys. xh. 45. The sub- 
stantive (IprjvoTToios (see Matt. v. 9) 
is found several times in classical 

hC avTov] The external authority 
for and against these words is nearly 
evenly balanced : but there wouUl 
obviously bo a tendency to reject 
them as superfluous. They are a re- 
sumption of the previous St' avTov. 
For other examples see ii. 13 i'/ia$', 
Rom. viii. 23 Ka\ avToi, Gal. ii. 15, 16 
»7/xfIy, Ephes. i. 13 eV w Kai, iii. i, 14 
TovTov x^P***' ^^bere words are simi- 
larly repeated for the sake of emphasis 
or distinctness. In 2 Cor. xii. 7 there 
is a repetition of Iva p,Ti vTrepatpw/xm, 
where again it is omitted in several 
excellent authorities. 

2 1 — 2 3. 'And ye too — ye Gentiles — 
are included in the terms of this 
peace. In times past ye had estranged 
yourselves from God. Your hearts 
were hostile to Him, while ye lived on 
in your evil deeds. But now, in 
Christ's body, in Christ's flesh which 
died on the Cross for your atonement, 
ye are reconciled to Him again. He 
will present you a living sacrifice, an 
acceptable offering unto Himself, free 
from blemish and free even from 
censure, that ye may stand the pierc- 
ing glance of Him whose scrutiny 
no defect can escape. But this 
can only be, if ye remain true to 
your old allegiance, if ye hold fiist 
(as I trust ye are holding fast) by the 
teaching of Epaphras, if the edifice of 
your faith is built on solid foundations 
and not reared carelessly on the sands, 
if ye suffer not yourselves to bo 




ixOpov^ Trj hiavoia ev toIs epyois toT^ TrovrjpoL^, vvvi ^e 
a.7roKaTriWa'yt]Te "eV tw (Tco/ULaTi Tr'j'S (rapKO^ auTOv ^ici 

21. vwl di diroKarriWa^ev. 

shifted or shaken but rest firmly on 
the hope which ye have found in tlie 
Gospel — the one universal unchange- 
able Gospel, which was proclaimed to 
every creature under heaven, of which 
I Paul, unworthy as I am, was called 
to be a minister.' 

21. aTTrjXkoTpicofiev/jvs^ 'estranged,' 
not dWoTplovs, 'strangers' ; comp. 
Flphes. ii. 12, iv. 18. See the note on 

(iiroKaToX'Kd^ai, ver. 20, 

fxOpovs'] 'hostile to God,' as the 
consequence of dirrjXKorpicofievovs, not 
'hateful to God,' as it is taken by 
some. The active rather than the 
passive sense of ixdpovs is required 
by the context, which (as commonly in 
the New Testament) speaks of the 
sinner as reconciled to God, not of 
God as reconciled to the sinner : comp. 

Rom. v. 10 ei yap e^dpoi avres KarrfK- 
Xdyrjfifv rw Qea> k.t.X. It is the mind 
of man, not the mind of God, which 
must undergo a change, that a re- 
union may be effected. 

TTj diavoia] 'in your mind, intent.' 
For the dative of the part affected 
compare Ephes. iv. 18 ia-Koroofievoi Ttj 
8iavoiq, Luke 1. S^ VTr€pri(f)dpovs diavoia 
Kap8ias avrav. So Kap8ia, Kopdiais, 

Matt. v. 8, xi. 29, Acts vii. 51, 2 Cor. 
ix. 7, I Thess. ii. 17; (Ppea-iu, i Cor. 
xiv. 20. 

ev Tois epyoii k.t.X.] 'in the midst 
of, in the performance of your wicked 
works' ; the same use of the preposi- 
tion as e. g. ii. 23, iv. 2. 

vvvi] Here, as frequently, vvv 
{yvvi) admits an aorist, because it de- 
notes not 'at the present moment^ 
but 'in the present dispensation, the 
present order of things': comp. e.g. 
ver. 26, Rom. v. 11, vii. 6, xi. 30, 31, 
xvi. 26, Ephes. ii. 13, iii. 5, 2 Tim. i. 
10, I Pet. i. 10, ii. 10, 25. In all 
these passages there is a direct con- 
trast between the old dispensation 

and the new, more especially as af- 
fecting the relation of the Gentiles to 
God. The aorist is found also in 
Classical ^vriters, where a similar con- 
trast is involved; e.g. Plato Symp. 

193 •*■ ^po Tov, aairep Xeyo), ev ^fiev' 
vvvt 8e 8ia Trjv ddiKiav bK^KicrBrjfiev vno 

TOV Beoii, Isa3us de Clean, her. 20 rorc 

/X€ v. . . vvv\ be... e^ovkr) drj. 

dnoKaTTjWdyrjTe] The reasons for 
preferring this reading, though the 
direct authority for it is so slight, are 
given in the detached note on the 
various readings. But, whether dno- 
KaTT}Xkdyr]T€ or drroKaTTJXka^ev be pre- 
ferred, the construction requires ex- 
planation. If dTTOKar^Wa^ev be a- 
dopted, it is perhaps best to treat 
8e as introducing the apodosis, the 
foregoing participial clause serving as 
the protasis : ' Andyou,though ye were 
once estranged... yet now hath he 
reconciled,' in which case the first 
v^ids will be governed directly by dno- 
KUT^Wa^ev; see Winer Gramm. § liii. 
p. 553. If this construction be adopted, 
TTapaarrjo-ai vfidi will describe the re- 
sult of d'770Ka-n]Wa^ev, 'so as to 'pre- 
sent you' ; but o 9eos will still be the 
nominative to a7roKar?/XXa^ei/ as in 
2 Cor. V. 19. If on the other hand 
diTOKaTrpCkdyriTe be taken, it is best to 
regard vwX Be dTroicaTTjXXdyrjTe as a 
direct indicative clause substituted 
for the more regular participial form 
vvvl 8e dTTOKaraWayevras for the sake 
of greater emphasis : see the note on 
ver. 26 TO divoKeKpvp,jJievov...vvv 8e e(f>u 
vepcodrj. In this case irapaiTTfjaai will 
be governed directly by evdoKrja-ev, 
and will itself govern vp-ds noTe wras 
K.T.X., the second vpds being a repe- 
tition of the first; 'And you who 
once were estranged... but noio ye luive 
teen reconciled... to present you, I 
say, holy a^id without blemish.' For 
the repetition of vp.ds, which was 




Tov QavctTOV [avTOi/], TrapacTTrjcrai vjulus dyiov^ Kai d/uLto- 
/jofs Kai dveyKXriTOV^ KarevcoTriov avTOv, ^^ei ye eTrifJie- 
v6Te Tri 7ri(TT6i TedejULeXLCojuievoi Kai edpaloi Kat jut) juera- 

needed to disentangle the construc- 
tion, see the note on Si' avrov ver. 

22. Tijsa-apKosavTov] It has been sup- 
posed that St Paul added these words, 
which are evidently emphatic, with a 
polemical aim either; (i) To combat 
docetism. Of this form of error how- 
ever there is no direct evidence till a 
somewhat later date : or (2) To com- 
bat a false spiritualism which took 
offence at the doctrine of an atoning 
sacrifice. But for this purpose they 
would not have been adequate, because 
not explicit enough. It seems simpler 
therefore to suppose that they were 
added for the sake of greater clear- 
ness, to distinguish the natural body 
of Christ intended here from the 
mystical body mentioned just above, 
ver. 18. Similarly in Ephes. ii. 14 
(V TTJ a-apKi avTov is used rather than 
€V TO) croofj-ari avrov, because acona 

occurs in the context (ver. 16) of 
Christ's mystical body. The same 
expression, t6 acofia rfjs aapKos, which 
we have here, occurs also below, ii. 
1 1 , but with a different emphasis and 
meaning. There the emphasis is on 
TO a-a[xa, the contrast lying between 
the whole body and a single member 
(see the note); whereas here ttjs aap- 
Kos is the emphatic part of the ex- 
pression, the antithesis being between 
the material and the spiritual. Com- 
pare also Ecclus. xxiii. 16 avSpconos 
Tvopvos iv (TcofiaTi crapKos avrov. 

Marcion omitted rrjs aapKos as in- 
consistent with his views, and ex- 
plained iv ra (ru>p.ari to mean the 
Church. Hence the comment of 
TertuUian adv. Marc. v. 19, 'utique 
in eo corpore, in quo mori potuit per 
carneni, mortuus est, non per eccle- 
siam sed propter ecclesiam, corpus 
commutando pro corpore, caraale pro 

Trapao-r^o-at] If the construction 
which I have adopted be con-ect, this 
is said of God Himself, as in 2 Cor. 

IV. 14 o eyelpas rov Kvpiov Irjaovv zeal 
Tfjias (Tvv ^Irjcrov iyepei Koi irapacrrr)- 
a- e I aiiv vplv. This construction seems 
in all respects preferable to connect- 
ing TTapaarrjaai, directly with anoKa- 

rrjWayrjre and interpreting the words, 
' Ye have been reconciled so that ye 
shoidd present yourselves { be- 
fore Him.' This latter interpretation 

leaves the Ka\ vp-as irore ovras k.t.\. 

without a government, and it gives to 
the second vpas a reflexive sense (as 

if vpai avrovs or tavrovs), which is at 

least harsh. 

dpcopovs] ^without blemish,' rather 
than ''without blam.e,' in the language 
of the New Testament; see the note 
on Ephes. i. 4. It is a sacrificial word, 
like reAeio?, cfKoKKiqpos, etc. The verb 
napicTTavai. also is used of presenting 
a sacrifice in Rom. xii. i Trapaarrja-ai 
ra adpara vpav dvaiav (^maav ay'iav 
k.tX, Lev. xvi. 7 (v. 1.): comp. Luke 
ii. 2. 

aueyKkriTovs] An advance upon a/xw- 
povs, 'in whom not only no blemish 
is found, but against whom no charge 
is brought' : comp. i Tim. vi. 14 aairi- 
\ov, dvfTTikrjpnrov. The word dvey- 
K\r]ros occurs again in i Cor. i. 8, 
I Tim. iii. 10, Tit. i. 6, 7. 

Karfvoiniov avrov] ' before Him,' i. e. 
'Himself,' as in the parallel passage, 
Ephes. i. 4; if the construction here 
adopted be correct. For this use of 
the personal pronoun instead of the 
reflexive see the note on els avrov, 

ver. 20. But does Kareva>iTiov avrov 

refer to God's future judgment or 
His present approbation? The latter 
seems more probable, both because 
the expression certainly has this 
meaning in the parallel passage, Ephes. 
i. 4, and because Karevmiriov, ivairiov. 




Kivovjuevoi dirb n-fjs e'ATr/^os tov evayyeXiov ov i^KovoraTe, 

Tov Kr}pv')(6evT0^ ev Trao"}] KTiorei rrj vtto tov ovpavov, ov 

eyevofxriv eyco YlavXo's hiaKOva. 

KoTfvavTi, etc., are commonly so used ; 
e.g. Rom. xiv. 22, i Cor. i. 29, 2 
Cor, ii. 17, iv. 2, vii. 12, xii. 19, 
etc. On the other hand, where the 
future judgment is mtended, a dif- 
ferent expression is found, 2 Cor. v. 
10 efjLirpocrdtv tov ^^/xaros rov Xpiarov. 
Thus God is here regarded, not as 
the judge who tries the accused, but 
as the fMcofjLoa-KOTTos who examines the 
victims (Polyc. Phil. 4, see the note 
on Ephes. i. 4). Compare Heb. iv. 12, 
13, for a closely allied metaphor. The 

passage in Jude 24, orJjo-ai Karevanriov 
TTJs 86^r]s avTov d[X(6fiovs iv ayaK\ia(T€L, 
though perhaps referring to final ap- 
proval, is too different in expression 
to influence the interpretation of St 
Paul's language here. 

23. el' -ye] On the force of these par- 
ticles see Gal. iii. 4. They express a 
pure hypothesis in themselves, but 
the indicative mood following converts 
the hypothesis into a hope. 

eTTinevere^ 'ye abide by, ye adhere 
to^ with a dative; the common con- 
struction of iiriixeveiv in St Paul : see 
the note on Phil. i. 24. In this con- 
nexion rrj nia-Tei is perhaps 'your 
faith,' rather than 'the faith.' 

Tedep.eXi(Ofievoi k.t.X.] 'built On a 
foundation and so firm'; not like 
the house of the foolish man in the 
parable who built xopiy depeXiov, Luke 
vi. 49. For Tf6fiie\i(i>y.€voi comp. 
Ephes. iii. 1 7. The consequence of tc- 
6ffj.f\i(ofxivoi. is eSpalot : Clem. Rom. 33 
rjhpacrev in\ tov dacbaXfj Toii l8iov 
(iovXrifxaTOi defxeXiov. The Words 
idpaios, (8pa((o, etc., are not uncom- 
monly applied to buildings, e.g. eSpat- 
o)fia I Tim. iii. 1 5. Comp. Ign. Ephes. 
10 vfiels idpaioi Trj iritrTei. 

fi^ fMfTaKivovfjLivoi] 'not constantly 
shifting' a present tense; the same 
idea as ibpaioi expressed from the ne- 
gative side, as in i Cor. xv. 58 e8paloi 

ylvedde, dfifTaKivrjToi, Polyc. Phil. lO 

'firmi in fide et immutabUes.' 

Ttis eXTTi'Sor /C.T.X.] 'the hope held 
out by the Gosjyel,^ tov evayyeXiov be- 
ing a subjective genitive, as in Ephes. 
i. 18 77 sXttIs t^s K\j]a-ea>s (comp. 
iv. 4). ^ 

ev irda-Tj KnVfi] 'among every crea- 
ture,' in fulfilment of the Lord's last 
command, Mark xvi. 15 Krjpv^aTe to 
evayyeXiov •Ka.cTTj Trj KTiaei. Here how- 
ever the definitive article, though 
found in the received text, iv naa-r) rfj 
KTia-ei, must be omitted in accoi-dance 
with the best authorities. For the 
meanings of iraaa ktIo-is, Tvaaa r] ktL- 
crty, see the note on ver. 15. The ex- 
pression irda-a ktIitis must not be limit- 
ed to man. The statement is given in 
the broadest form, all creation animate 
and inanimate being included, as in 
Rev. V. 13 ndv KTlap.a...Ka\ to. iv av- 
Tols irdvTa rjKovaa Xeyovra k.t.X. For 

the hyperbole iv irda-r] Kria-ei compare 
I Thess. L 8 iv ttuvtI Tona. To demand 
statistical exactness in such a context 
would be to require what is never re- 
quired in similar cases. The motive 
of the Apostle here is at once to em- 
phasize the universality of the genuine 
Gospel, which has been offered with- 
out reserve to all alike, and to appeal 
to its publicity, as the credential and 
guarantee of its truth : see the notes 
on ver. 6 iv Travrl tS Koa-p-a and on 
ver. 28 TTCLVTa avdpconov. 

ov iyfvoprjv k.t.X.] Why does St 
Paul introduce this mention of him- 
self so abruptly ? His motive can 
hardly be the assertion of his Aposto- 
lic authority, for it does not appear 
that this was questioned; otherwise 
he would have declared his commis- 
sion in stronger terms. We can only 
answer that impressed with the dig- 
nity of his office, as involving the offer 
of grace to the Gentiles, he cannot 




'^'^Ni'i' X^'-P^ ^^ "^^^^ 7ra6t]iuLa(riv virep vfjitdv, kul 

reft-ain from magnifying it. At the 
same time this mention enables him 
to link himself in bonds of closer sym- 
pathy with the Colossians, and he 
passes on at once to his relations with 
them: comp. Ephes. iii. 2—9, i Tim. 
1. II sq., in which latter passage the 
introduction of his own name is 
equally abrupt, 

eycB navXos] i.e. 'weak and unwor- 
thy as I am': comp. Ephes. iii. 8 iixoi 

TtB eXaxi-O^OTepco navTav ayicov. 

'24 — 27. 'Now when I see the full 
extent of God's mercy, twio when I 
ponder over His mighty work of re- 
conciliation, I cannot choose but re- 
joice in my sufferings. Yes, I Paul 
the persecutor, I Paul the feeble and 
sinful, am permitted to supplement— 
I do not shrink from the word— to 
supplement the aflBiictions of Christ. 
Despite aU that He underwent, He the 
Master has left something still for me 
the servant to undergo. And so my 
flesh is privileged to suffer for His 
body — His spiritual body, the Church. 
I was appointed a minister of the 
Church, a steward in God's househt>ld, 
for this very purpose, that I might 
administer my office on your behalf, 
might dispense to you Gentiles the 
stores which His bountiful grace has 
provided. Thus I was charged to 
preach without reserve the whole 
Gospel of God, to proclaim the great 
mystery which had remained a secret 
through all the ages and all the gene- 
rations from the beginning, but which 
now in these last times was revealed 
to His holy people. For such was His 
good pleasure. God willed to make 
known to them, in all its inexhaustible 
wealth thus displayed through the 
call of the Gentiles, the glorious reve- 
lation of this mystery — Christ not the 
Saviour of the Jews only, but Christ 
dwelling in you, Christ become to you 
the hope of glory.' 

24. Nvj/ x°^P^} ^ sudden outburst 
of thanksgiving, that he, who was less 

than the least, who was not worthy to 
be called an Apostle, should be allowed 
to share and even to supplement the 
sufferings of Christ. The relative os, 
which is found in some authorities, is 
doubtless the repetition of the final 
syllable of bia<ovoi ; but its insertion 
would be assisted by the anxiety of 
scribes to supply a connecting link 
between the sentences. The genuine 
reading is more characteristic of St 
Paid. The abruptness, which dis- 
penses with a connecting particle, has 
a parallel in i Tim. i. 12 xop'" ^x*" ''9 

ivbyvafiaa-avTl fif Xptorw k.t.X., where 

also the common text inserts a Unk of 
connexion, Koi x^p'" ^'x*^ k.t.X. Com- 
pare also 2 Cor. vii. 9 vvv x^'P*"? o'^X 
on k.tX, where again there is no con- 
necting particle. 

The thought underlying vvv seems to 
be this : ' K ever I have been disposed 
to repine at my lot, if ever I have felt 
my cross almost too heavy to bear, 
yet note — now, when I contemplate 
the lavish wealth of God's mercy — 
now when I see all the glory of bear- 
ing a part in this magnificent work — 
my sorrow is turned to joy.' 

dvTuvan'Krjpa] 'I Jill up on my part ^ 
' I supplement' The single compound 
dvaTikr](iovv occurs several times (e.g. 
I Cor, xiv. 16, xvi. 17, Gal. vi. 2) ; an- 
other double compound Trpoa-avanXi]- 
poiiv twice (2 Cor. ix. 12, xi. 9; comp. 

Wisd. xix. 4, V. 1.); but avravairk-qpovv 

only here in the lxs or New Testa- 
ment. For this verb compare De- 
mosth. lie Si/tnm. p. 182 tovtwv rav 

crvfifiopiHv eKdaTrjv SteXetf (ceXevo) Trevre 
Hepr) Kara ScoSe/ca av8pas, avravanXr]- 

poivTUi TTpOS TOV f V TV O p (OT OT O V Oel 

Toiis dnopoiTOTovs (where roi/s dnopio- 
rarovs- should be taken as the subject to 
avravanXr^povvTai), Dion Cass. xUv. 48 
"iv o(TOV..-evt8ei,TOVTO ex rrjs Trapa TtiJi/ 
aX\(ov avvreXeiai dvTavaTrXrjpfodrj, 
Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. 12 p. 878 ov- 
TOi...Triv diTOCTToXiK^v dirovatav 

avravanXripol, Apollon. Constr. Or. i. 3 




di^TapaTrXtjpu) Ta v(TT6pf]fxaTa twv dXi^eoiv tov Xpi- 

(p. 13 sq.) ?) avTutvvii'ia dvTavaTrXrj- 
povtra nal t^v deaLV tov ovofiaTos Kol 
TTjv ra^iv TOV pr^aTos, Ptol. Math. 

Comp. vi. 9 (i. p. 435 ed. Halma) eVel 
S' »7 /iei/ eXXeiTreti' eVot'et ti]v ano- 
KaTa<TTa(Tiv rj 8e "TrXeova^eip Kara 
Tiva avvTvx^iav tjp lacos Kai o Itt- 
Trapxos dvravanXrjpoviJLevrjV ttcos KaTa- 

vfvoijKec K.T.X. The substantive dvTa- 
panXi]pcoa-is occurs in Diog. Laert. x. 
48. So too dvTavanX-qdeiv Xen. Hell. 
ii. 4. II, 12 ^vveTa^avTO cDore efiTrXrj- 
crat, Tiji/ 686 v. ..ol Se arro rij? (pvXrjs 
dvTaveTr\r](Tav . , .ttjv 686v. Compai'G also 
dvTavia-oiip Themist. Paraphr. Arist. 
43 B ovhkv KooXuet Kara. TavTov aWodi 
TTOV neTajSdWeiv depa els v8(op /cai 
avTavicrovadai top (rvfiTraPTa oyKOP, and 
dvTavia-cofjLa Joseph. Ant. xviii. 9. 7- 
The meaning of ai/rl in this compound 
will be plain from the passages quoted. 
It signifies that the supply comesfrom 
an opposite quarter to the deficiency. 
This idea is more or less definitely ex- 
pressed in the contest of all the pas- 
sages, in the words wiiich are spaced. 
The force of dpTapairkrjpovv in St Paul 
is often explained as denoting simply 
that the supply corresponds in ex- 
tent to the deficiency. This inter- 
pretation practically deprives dvTi of 
any meaning, for dvaTrXrjpovp alone 
would denote as much. If indeed the 
supply had been the subject of the 
verb, and the sentence had run tu 

TTud^fiaTa fiov dvTapaw\r]pol Ta vctttj- 
prip,aTa K.T.X., this idea might perhaps 
be reached without sacrificing the 
sense of dvTi ; but in such a passage 
as this, where one personal agent is 
mentioned in connexion with the sup- 
ply and another in connexion with 
the deficiency, the one forming the 
subject and the other being involved 
in the object of the verb, the dvrl can 
only describe the antithesis of these 
personal agents. So interpreted, it 
is eminently expressive here. The 
point of the Apostle's boast is that 
Christ the sinless Master should have 
l^t something for Paul the unworthy 

servant to suffer. The right idea has 
been seized and is well expressed by 
Photius Amjjhil. 121 (i. p. 709 Migne) 
ov yap anXSs (jirjaip 'AvoTrKrjpoj, dXX' 
AirrapaTrXr] pa', TovrecTTip, 'Airt SetrTTO- 
Tov Kai 8i8a(TKdXoii 6 8ovXos €ya> (cat 
fiadr)Tf)s K.T.X. Similar in meaning, 
though not identical, is the expres- 
sion in 2 Cor. i. 5, where the sufier- 
ings of Christ are said to 'overflow' 
iirepicra-eveiv) upon the Apostle. The 
theological difficulty whicb this plain 
and natural interpretation of dvrava- 
TrXrjpovp is supposed to involve will 
be considered in the note on tSv 


TO. v(7Teprip.aTa] ' the things lack- 
ing.'' This same word varepjjfia 'de- 
ficiency ' occurs with dvanXrjpovp I Cor. 
xvi. 17, Phil. ii. 30, and with npoaapa- 
7rXr]povp 2 Cor. ix. 12, xi. 9. Its direct 
opposite is irepia-aevfia 'abundance, 
superfluity,' 2 Cor. viii. 13, 14 ; comp. 
Luke xxi. 4. Another interpretation, 
which makes vareprjfia an antithesis 
to irpoTeprjua, explaining it 'the later' 
as opposed to the earlier 'sufierings 
of Christ,' is neither supported by the 
usage of the word nor consistent with 

TUP 6Xii\re(>iP tov '^pioToxi] 'of the 
afflictions of Christ,' i.e. which Christ 
endured. This seems to be the only 
natural interpretation of the words. 
Others have explained them as mean- 
ing 'the afilictions imposed by Christ,' 
or 'the afilictions endured for Christ's 
sake,' or 'the afflictions which re- 
semble those of Christ.' AU such 
interpretations put a more or less 
forced meaning on the genitive. All 
alike ignore the meaning of dprX iu 
dvTavanXr}poi which poiuts tO a dis- 
tifiction of persons suffering. Others 
again suppose the words to describe 
St Paul's own afflictions regarded as 
Christ's, because Christ suffei-s in His 
suffering Church ; e.g. Augustine in 
Psalm, cxlii. § 3 (iv. p. 1590) 'Patitur, 
inquit, adhuc Christus pressuram, non 
in cai'ue sua in qua ascendit in caelum, 
II — 2 



[I. 25 

CTOu eV Tt] aapKL juov virep tov crcojuaTO^ avTOv, o 
ecTLV ri eKK\ri(ria' *-^r}s eyevofJ.t]v eyco hiaKOvos kutu Tt]V 

Bed in carne mea quae adhuc laborat 
in terra,' quoting Gal. ii. 20. This 
last is a very favourite explanation, 
and has much to recommend it. It 
cannot be charged with wresting the 
meaning of al 6Xi-\p-ei,s tov Xpicrrov. 
Moreover it harmonizes with St Paul's 
mode of speaking elsewhere. But, hke 
the others, it is open to the futal ob- 
jection that it empties the first pre- 
position in dvTava-rrXrjpa of any force. 
The central idea in this intei-pretation 
is the identification of the suffering 
Apostle with the suffering Christ, 
whereas avTavair\rip(i emphasizes the 
distinction between the two. It is 
therefore inconsistent with this con- 
text, however important may be the 
truth which it expresses. 

The theological difficulty, which 
these and similar explanations are in- 
tended to remove, is imaginary and 
not real. There is a sense in which 
it is quite legitimate to speak of 
Christ's afflictions as incomplete, a 
sense in which they may be, and in- 
deed must be, supplemented. For 
the sufferings of Christ may be con- 
sidered from two different points of 
view. They are either satisf actor ice 
or oedifiA:atoriae. They have their 
sacrificial efficacy, and they have their 
ministerial utility. (i) From the 
former point of view the Passion of 
Christ was the one full perfect and 
sufiicient sacrifice, oblation, and satis- 
faction for the sins of the whole 
world. In this sense there could 
be no va-Teprjfia of Christ's sufferings; 
for, Christ's sufferings being different 
i7i kind from those of His servants, 
the two are incommensm-able. But 
in this sense the Apostle would surely 
have used some other expression 
such as TOV aravpov (i. 20, Eph. ii. 
16 etc.), or TOV davoTov (i. 22, Rom. 
y. 10, Heb. ii. 14, etc.), but hardly 
Tcov dXiyJAfav. Indeed 6\i\ins, 'afflic- 

tion,' is not elsewhere applied in 
the New Testament in any sense 
to Christ's sufferings, and certainly 
would not suggest a sacrificial act. 
(2) From the latter point of view 
it is a simple matter of fact that the 
afflictions of every saint and mar- 
tyr do supplement the afflictions of 
Christ. The Church is built up by 
repeated acts of self-denial in succes- 
sive individuals and successive gene- 
rations. They continue the work which 
Christ began. They bear their part 
in the sufferings of Christ (2 Cor. i. 7 

Koivavol Toiv ira^Tj^arav, Phil. iii. lO 
Koivavlav tw TTaBrjp.a.Tuiv) ; but St Paul 
would have been the last to say that 
they bear their part in the atoning 
sacrifice of Christ. This being so, St 
Paul does not mean to say that his 
own sufferings filled up all the va- 
Tepi]p.aTa, but only that they went to- 
wards filling them up. The present 
tense duravaTrXijpS denotes an incho- 
ate, and not a complete act These 
varep^paTa wiU never be fully supple- 
mented, until the struggle of the 
Church with sin and unbelief is 
brought to a close. 

Thus the idea of expiation or sa- 
tisfaction is wholly absent from this 
passage; and with it is removed the 
twofold temptation which has beset 
theologians of opposite schools, (i) 
On the one hand Protestant commen- 
tators, rightly feeling that any inter- 
pretation which infringed the com- 
pleteness of the work wrought by 
Christ's death must be wrong, be- 
cause it woiUd make St Paul contra- 
dict himself on a cardinal point of his 
teaching, have been tempted to Avrest 
the sense of the words. They have 
emptied avravanXTjpai of its proper 
force ; or they have assigned a false 
meaning to vaTepi]p.aTa ; or they have 
atUiched a non-natural sense to the 
genitive tju Xpto-rou. (2) On the 




OLKOvojULiav Tou Qeov Trju ^o6e7(rai/ /moi eh vfia^^ 7r\r]pw(rai 
Tou \6you Tov Qeov, ^^to juLvo'Trjpiov to dTTOKeKpujuiuLevou 

other hand Romanist commentators, 
wliile protesting (,as they had a riglit 
to do) against these methods of inter- 
pretation, have fallen into the opposite 
error. They have found in this pas- 
sage an assertion of the merits of the 
saints, and (as a necessary conse- 
quence) of the doctrine of indul- 
gences. They have not observed that, 
if the idea of vicarious satisfaction 
comes into the passage at all, the satis- 
faction of St Paul is represented hero 
as the same in kind with the satisfac- 
tion of Christ, however different it may 
be in degree ; and thus they have truly 
exposed themselves to the reproach 
which Estius indignantly repudiates 
on their behalf, 'quasi Christus non 
satis passus sit ad redemptioneni nos- 
tram, ideoque supplemento niartyium 
opus habeat; quod impium est sen- 
tire, quodque Catholicos dicere non 
minus impie calumniantiir hsereticL' 
It is no part of a commentator here 
to enquire generally whether the Ro- 
man doctrine of the satisfaction of the 
saints can in any way be reconciled 
with St Paul's doctrine of the satis- 
faction of Christ. It is sufficient to 
say that, so far as regards this par- 
ticular passage, the Roman doctrine 
can only be imported into it at the 
cost of a contradiction to the Pauline 
doctrine. It is only fair to add how- 
ever that Estius himself says, ' quae 
quidem doctrina, etsi Catholica et 
Apostolica sit, atque aliunde satis 
probetur, ex hoc tamen Apostoli loco 
nobis non videtur admodum solide 
statui posse.' But Roman Catholic 
commentators generally find this 
meaning in the text, as may be seen 
from the notes of h, Lapide. 

Toil (TcifiaTos avTov^ An antithesis 
of the Apostle's own flesh and Christ's 
body. This antithetical form of ex- 
pression obliges St Paul to explain 
what he means by the body of Christ, 

ecTTiv T] eKKkrjaia; COmp. ver. 1 8. 
Contrast the explanation in ver. 22 eV 
ro) acofiari Trjs aapKos avToii, and see 
tiie note there. 

25. T171' olnovofiiav K.r.X.] 'steward- 
ship in the house of God.^ The word 
oiKovofiia seems to have two senses : 
(i) 'The actual administration of a 
household'; (2) 'The office of the ad- 
ministrator.' For the lormer mean- 
ing see the note on Ephes. i. 10 ; for 
the latter sense, which it has here, 
compare i Cor. ix. 17 olKovofilau rrem- 
a-Tevfiai, Luke xvi. 2 — 4, Isaiah xxii. 
19, 21. So the Apostles and minis- 
ters of the Church are called olKovofioi, 

1 Cor. iv. I, 2, Tit. i. 7 : comp. 1 Pet. 
iv. 10. 

els vixas] 'to youward,' i.e, 'for 
the benefit of you, the Gentiles'; fU 
vfias being connected with tt^v 8odel- 
aav fji.01, as in Ephes, iii. 2 t^v oIkovo- 
liiav TTJs x^ip'Toj TOV Qeov Trjs 8o6ei<TT]s 
/xoi els vfj,a.s; comp. Rom. xv. 16 8ia 
TTjv x^P''^ '"'?'' ^odeladv /mol into tov 
Qeov eis to elvai jxe Xei,Tovpyov 'Kpio'Tov 
'lijcrou els to. 'iOvq. 

TrXrjpmarai] Ho fuifil^ i.e. 'to preach 
fully,' 'to give its complete develop- 
ment to'; as Rom. xv. 19 wo-re /xe 
ciTro 'lepovcraXfjn koI kvkXco p-expt tov 
iXkvpiKov ireiikrjpaxevaL to evayyeKiov 
Toi) Xptaroi). Thus ' the word of 
God' here is 'the Gospel,' as in most 
places (i Cor. xiv. 36, 2 Cor. ii. 17, iv. 
2, etc.), though not always (e.g. Rom. 
ix. 6), in St Paul, as also in the Acts. 
The other interpretation, 'to accom- 
plish the promise of God,' though 
suggested by such passages as i Kings 
ii. 27 7r\r]pi)i6fji/ai to pijfia Kvplov, 

2 Chron. xxxvi. 21 TrXT]p(o6i]pai Xoyov 
Kvpiov, etc., is alien to the context 

26. to p-va-Ti^piov] This is not the 
only term borrowed from the ancient 
mysteries, which St Paul employs to 
describe the teaching of the Gospel 

1 66 


LI. 27 

ofVo Tcou alcovcov Kai cltto twv yevewv, vvv Se e<pav6p(jo6ri 
TOL^ dyioL^ auTOVy "^ois tjdeXrjorev 6 Geo? yi/copicrai tl 


The vrord reXetov just below, ver. 28, 
seems to be au extension of the same 
metaphor. In Phil 

IV. 12 agam we 
have the verb and in E2:»hes. 
i. 14 a-4>payLCe(Tdai is perhaps an image 
derived from the same source. So 
too the Ephesians are addressed as 
naiiXov (TvfifiviTTai in Ign. Ephes. 12. 
The Christian teacher is thus regarded 
as a Upa(f)dvTTis (see Epict. iii. 21. 
13 sq.) who initiates his disciples into 
the rites. There is this difference 
however ; that, whereas the heathen 
mysteries were strictly confined to a 
narrow circle, the Christian mysteries 
are freely communicated to all. There 
is therefore an intentional paradox in 
the employment of the image by St 
Paid. See the notes on Travra apOpa- 
TTov TfXfiov below. 

Thus the idea of secresy or reserve 
disappears when fiva-Trfpiov is adopted 
into the Christian vocabulary by St 
Paul: and the word signifies simply 
'a truth which was once hidden but 
now is revealed,' ' a truth which with- 
out special revelation would have been 
unknown.' Of the natvire of the truth 
itself the word says nothing. It may 
be transcendental, incomprehensible, 
mystical, mysterious, in the modern 
sense of the term (i Cor. xv. 51, Eph. 
V. 32) : but this idea is quite acciden- 
tal, and must be gathered from the 
special circumstances of the case, for 
it cannot be inferred from the word 
itself. Hence fiva-rrfpiov is almost 
universally found in connexion with 
words denoting revelation or pubUca- 
tion ', e. g. aTTOKoXinTTeiv, aTroKaXv\j/'is, 
Rom. xvi. 25, Ephes. iii. 3, 5, 2 Thess. 
ii. 7 ; yvcopiCeiv Rom. xvi. 26, Ephes. i. 
9, iii. 3, 10, vi. 19; (pavepovv Col. iv. 3, 
Rom. xvi. 26, I Tim. iii. 16; XaXeli/iv. 
3, I Cor. ii. 7, xiv. 2; Xtyfiv, i Cor. 
XV. 51. 

But the one special 'mystery' which 

absorbs St Paul's thoughts in the 
Epistles to the Colossians and Ephe- 
sians is the free admission of the 
GentUes on equal terms to the pri- 
vileges of the covenant. For this he 
is a prisoner ; this he is bound to 
proclaim fearlessly (iv. 3, Ephes. vi. 
1 9) ; this, though hidden from all time, 
was communicated to him by a special 
revelation (Ephes. iii. 3sq.); in this had 
God most signally displayed the lavish 
wealth of His goodness (ver. 27, ii. 
2 sq., Ephes. i. 6 sq., iii. 8 sq.). In one 
passage only throughout these two 
epistles is fxva-Tijpiov applied to any- 
thing else, Ephes. v. 32. The same 
idea of the fiva-ri^piov appears very 
prominently also in the thanksgiving 
(added apparently later than the rest 
of the letter) at the end of the Epistle 
to the Romans, xvi. 25 sq. fiva-TTjpiov... 
els vTvaKOTfv niartwi ils iravra to. edvr] 

aiTo Toiv aldcvatv k.t.X.] The pre- 
position is doubtless temporal here, 
being opposed to vvv, as in the pa- 
rallel passage, Ephes. iii. 9: comp. 

Rom. xvi. 25 KaTO. divoKaKvy\nv fivcTTTf- 
piov xpovois aiaiVLOis (Tfaiyrffievov, 
1 Cor. ii. 7 ©eoC (TO(f)iav fv fivaTrjpLco 
TTjv curoKeKpvfJ.fifvj]v T}v TTpocopicrev 6 
Oeos npo twv alcovav. So tOO aV 
alavos, Acts iii. 21, xv. 18, Ps. xcii. 
3, etc.; dnb Kara^oXfjy Koafiov, Matt, 
xiii. 35, XXV. 34, etc. 

Toiv yeveav] An alaiv is made Up of 
many yeveai; comp. Ephes. iii. 21 ds 
ndcras ras yeveds tov alavos twv alco- 
V(ov, Is. h. 9 coy -yei/fa alcovos (where 

the Hebrew has the plural 'gene- 
rations'). Hence the order here. 
Not only was this mystery unknown 
in remote periods of antiquity, but 
even in recent generations. It came 
upon the world as a sudden surprise. 
The moment of its revelation was the 
moment of its fulfilment. 




*^bv tijULei^ KaTayyeWofJiev vovSeTOvvTe^ iravTa avdpw- 

27. OS icrriv. 

nXeov €V TovTOLS rj noWfj tov fiva-TTjpiov 
86^a. Here too was its wealth; for 
it overflowed all barriers of caste or 

vvv 8e /C.T-.X.] An indicative clause 
is substituted for a participial, which 
would otherwise have been more na- 
tural, for the sake of emphasizing the 
statement; com p. ver. 22 wi'i 8e uTfo- 
KaTT)XkdyriT€, an d see Winer § Ixiii. p.7 1 7. 

27. TjdeXTjcrev] ' willed,' ' wcis pleased.' 
It was God's grace: it was no merit 
of their own. See the note on i. i 

8ta OeXrjfiaTos Qfov. 

TO ttXovtos] The 'wealth of God,' 
as manifested in His dispensation of 
grace, is a prominent idea in these 
epistles : comp. ii. 2, Ephes. i, 7, 1 8, 
iii. 8, i6; comp. Rom. xi. 33. See 
above, p. 43 sq. St Paul uses the 
neuter and the masculine forms in- 
differently in these epistles (e.g. t6 
ttXovtos Eplies. i. 7, 6 ttXovtos Ephes. 
i. 18), as in his other letters (e.g. ro 
irXoiiTos 2 Cor. viii. 2, d ttXovtos Rom. 
ix. 23). In most passages however 
there are various readings. On the 
neuter forms to tt-Xovtos, to C^Xos, etc., 
see Winer § ix. p. 76. 

Trjs 86^r]s] i. e. ' of the glorious 
manifestation.' This word in Hel- 
lenistic Greek is frequently used of a 
bright light; e.g. Luke ii. 9 irepieXan- 
ylrev, Acts xxii. 11 tov (ficoTos, i Cor. 
XV. 41 jJXtov, aeXi]vris, etc., 2 Cor. iii. 7 
TOV TTpocrconov [Mcuuo-eo)?]. Heuce it 

is applied generally to a divine mani- 
festation, even where there is no phy- 
sical accompaniment of light ; and 
more especially to the revelation of 
God in Christ (e. g. Joh. i. 14, 2 Cor. 
iv, 4, etc.). The expression ttXovtos 
rrjs 86^r]s occurs again, Rom. ix. 23, 
Ephes. i. 18, iii. 16. See above, ver. 
1 1 with the note. 

ev Tols edveaiv] i.e. 'as exhibited 
among the Gentiles.' It was just 
here that this 'mystery,' this dispen- 
sation of grace, achieved its greatest 
triumphs and displayed its transcend- 
ant glory; t^aiVerat fj.ev yap koi iv cre- 

poiy, writes Chrysostom, ttoXXo) Se 

race. Judaism was 'beggarly' (Gal. 
iv. 9) in comparison, since its treasures 
sufficed only for a few. 

o e'oTti'] The antecedent is pro- 
bably TOV iia(TTr]p'iov ; comp. ii. 2 tov 
fivcTTrjpiov tov QeoH , Hpia-Tov iv m elcriv 


Xpia-Tos iv vfuv] 'Christ in you,' 
i.e. 'you Gentiles.' Not Christ, but 
Christ given freely to the Gentiles, 
is the 'mystery' of which St Paul 
speaks ; see the note on fivarqpiov 
above. Thus the various reading, 6s 
for o, though highly suppoi'ted, inter- 
feres with the sense. With Xpia-Tos 
iv vfuv compare ixed' rmav Qeos Matt. 
i. 23. It may be a question however, 
whether iv x> means 'within you' 
or '■among you.' The former is per- 
haps the more probable interpreta- 
tion, as suggested by Rom. viii. 10, 
2 Cor. xiii. 5, Gal. iv. 19 ; comp. 

Ephes. iii. 17 KaTOlKfjaai TOV XpLtTTOV 

8ia TTJs TTiCTTecis iv Tols Kapbiais vfiwv. 

ij eXTTiff] Comp. I Tim. i. 2 ; so 17 
[koivti] iXTr\si]p.cov Ign. JEph. 21, Magn. 
I i,Philad. 5, etc., applied to our Lord. 

28, 29. 'This Christ we, the Apo- 
stles and Evangelists, proclaim with- 
out distinction and without reserve. 
We know no restriction either of 
persons or of topics. We admonish 
every man and instruct every man. 
We initiate every man in all the mys- 
teries of wisdom. It is our single 
aim to present every man fully and 
perfectly taught in Christ. For this 
end I train myself in the discipline of 
self-denial ; for this end I commit my- 
self to the arena of suffering and toil, 
putting forth in the conflict all that 
energy which He inspires, and which 
works in me so powerfully.' 

28. rjp.iis'] 'we,' the preachers; the 
same opposition as in i Cor. iv. 8, 10, 



[I. 28 

TTOV Kal dihctcTKOVTes TravTa avOpwirov eV iracrn crocpia, 
'iva '7rapa<TTr](Tiaix£v ttuvtu avQpwirov TeXeiov ev XpiCTTcp' 

ix. II, 2 Cor. xiii. 5 sq., i Thess. ii. 
13 sq., etc. The Apostle hastens, as 
usual, to speak of the part which he 
was privileged to bear in this glorious 
dispensation. He is constrained to 
magnify his office. See the next note, 
and comp. ver. 23. 

ov i]fJLf'is K.T.X.] As in St Paul's own 
language at Thessalonica, Acts xvii. 3 
01/ iyo) KarayyeWoi vfilv, and at 

Athens, Acts x\iL 23 tovto iyai ko- 
rayyeXXo) vfxiv, in both which pas- 
sages, as here, emphasis is laid on the 
person of the preacher. 

vQvOeTovvTti] ^ admo7iishitig.' The 
two words vovderelv and diBaa-Keiv pre- 
sent complementary aspects of the 
preacher's duty, and are related the 
one to the other, as fieravoia to ttIcttis, 
'■warning to repent, instructing in 
the faith.' For the relation oivovBenlv 
to ixeravoia see Plut. 3Ior. p. 68 evea-ri 
TO vovderovv koL fxeravoLav efnroiovv, 
p. 452 j) vovOecria Koi 6 y\royos ffJuroiel 
fifrdi/oiav Koi ai<T-)(vvrjv. The two verbs 

vovBerelv and bi^avKeiv are connected 
in Plato Protag. 323 d, Legg. 845 b, 
Plut. Mor. p. 46 (comp. p. 39), Dion 
Chrys. Or. xxxiii. p. 369; the sub- 
stantives bi^axfi and vovdeTr}(Tis in 
Plato Resp. 399 b. Similarly vovde- 
tc'lv and neideiv occur together in 
Arist. Rhet. ii. 1 8. For the two func- 
tions of the preacher's oflSce, cor- 
responding respectively to the two 
words, sec St Paul's own language in 
Acts XX. 21 hiafiapTvp6ii.evos-.Tfiv els 
Qfov p,eTavoiav Kal tt'kttlv els rov 
'K.vpiov rjfxa)v Irjaovv. 

navTa avOpioirov] Three times re- 
peated for the sake of emphasizing 
the unicersality of the Gospel. This 
great truth, for which St Paul gave 
his life, was now again endangered 
by the doctrine of an intellectual ex- 
olusiveness taught by the Gnosticizers 
at C(^ossa3, as before it had been 
endangered by the doctrine of a 

ceremonial exclusiveness taught by 
the Judaizei-s in Galatia. See above, 
pp. 75, 90, 96 sq. For the repetition 
of navTa compare especially i Cor. x. 
I sq., where iravTes is five times, and 
ib. xii. 29, 30, where it is seven times 
repeated; see also Rom. ix. 6, 7, xi. 
32, I Cor. xii. 13, xiii. 7, xiv. 31, etc. 
Transcribers have been oflfended at 
this characteristic repetition here, and 
consequently have omitted TravTa av- 
BpcoTTov in one place or other. 

ev nda-j] ao(j)ia] The Gnostic spoke 
of a blind faith for the many, of a 
higher yfaa-is for the few. St Paid 
declares that the fullest wisdom is 
ofi'ered to all alike. The character of 
the teaching is as free from restriction, 
as are the qualifications of the recipi- 
ents. Comp. ii. 2, 3 TTOV TtXoVTOS TTJS 

nXrjpo^opias ttJs (rvvecrea)s...7rdvTes 01 
drjcravpol Trjs cro(pias Ka\ yvcocrecos. 

7rapa(TTT](T(op.ev] See the note on 

TrapacTTTJaai, ver. 22. 

TeXetoi^] So I Cor. ii. 6, 7 ao(f)iav 8e 
XaXoO/xei" ev tols Te\elois...Qeov cro- 
(})iav ev pv(TTT]pi{0 ttjv dwoKeKpvp.p.evr]v. 
In both these passages the epithet 
TeXeios is probably a metaphor bor- 
rowed from the ancient mysteries, 
where it seems to have been applied 
to the fully instructed, as opposed to 
the novices: comp. Plato Plicedr. 

249 C TfXeovs ae\ TfXeTas Te\ovp.evos 
Tf\eos ovTws povos yiyveTai...2^0 B, 
eidov re Koi ereXovvTo TeXeToJv r]v 6e'pis 
Xeyeii/ paKapia)TaTr]v...pvQvpevoi re Ka\ 
eTvoTTTevovres ev avyj] KaOapa, Si/nip. 
209 E TavTa...Kav cri) pvrjdeirjs' to 8e 
TeXea Kal eiroiTTiKd...ovK 018' el olos t 
av ci7;y, Plut. Fragm. de An. vi. 2 
(v. p. 726 Wyttenb.) 6 navTeX^s ^67 
Kal pepvqpevos (with the Context), 
Dion Chrys. Or. xii. p. 203 tt^v 6X6- 

KXripuv Kal Tu ovTi TeXeiav TeXerr\v 

fivoiipevov; see Valcknaer on Eurip. 
Hiiypol. 25, and Lobeck Aglaoph. p. 33 
sq., p. 126 sq. Somewhat similarly in 


^ei9 o Kac KOTTiw ayoovLCpfjievo^ kutu ttjp evefiyeiav av- 
Tou Tr]v evepyovfjievr^v ev f./uLoi eV duvdjULeL. 

the Lxx, I Chron. xxv. 8 reXeiwu koI 
^av6av6vTtov stands for 'the teachers 
(or the wise) and the scholars.' So 

also iu 2 Pet. i. 16 eVoTrrat yevrjOevrei 
TTJs eKeivov neyaXfioTrjTos we seem tO 
have the same metaphor. As an illus- 
tration it may be mentioned that 
Plato and Aristotle called the higher 
philosophy fnonTiKov, because those 
who have transcended the bounds 
of the material, olov fVTfXfj [1. ev re- 
\iTfi\ TfXos fX^'" <p'-^oao(f)iav [0iXocro- 
^t'ay] vofii^ov(Ti, Plut. Mor. 382 D, E. 
For other metaphorical expressions 
in St Paul, derived from the myste- 
ries, see above on fiva-rr^piov ver. 26. 
Influenced probably by this heathen 
use of reXfios, the early Christians 
applied it to the baptized, as opposed 
to the catechumens : e.g. Justin Dial. 
8 (p. 225 c) Tvapeariv eTTiyvovTi croi rov 
"Kpiarov Tox) Qeov /cat TfAei'o) yevofievco 
evdaifiovelv, Clem. Horn. iii. 29 vnoxco- 
oeiv fxoL KeXevcras, cos /xt^'tto) flkijcpoTt to 
npos (T<i>rr]piav ^anTiap-a, to'is rjdrj re- 
Xeiois €(f)T] K.T.X., xi. 36 ^a7rTiaas...r]8r] 
XoiTTov reXeiou aura k.t.X.; and for 
later wi-iters see Suicer Thes. s. vv. re- 
Xdoco, TeXeicoais. At all events we 
may ascribe to its connexion with the 
mysteries the fact that it was adopted 
by Gnostics at a later date, and most 
probably by the Guosticizers at this 
time, to distinguish the possessors of 
the higher yvdJa-Ls from the vulgar 
herd of believers: see the passages 
quoted in the note on Phil. iii. 15. 
While employing the favourite Gnostic 
term, the Apostle strikes at the root 
of the Gnostic doctrine. The lan- 
guage descriptive of the heathen mys- 
teries is transferred by him to the 
Christian dispensation, that he may 
thus more effectively contrast the 
things signified. The true Gospel also 
has its mysteries, its hierophants, its 
initiation: but these are open to all 
alike. In Christ every believer is re- 

Xeios, for he has been admitted as 
enonTrjs of its most profound, most 
awful, secrets. See again the note 

on ajTOKpyCJioi, ii. 3. 

29. fif o] i e. els TO TrapadTTJcranrdvTa 

avSpioTTov TeXeiov, 'that I may initiate 
all mankind in the fulness of this mys- 
tery,' 'that I may preach the Gospel 
to all mthout reserve.' If St Paul 
had been content to preach an exclu- 
sive Gospel, he might have saved him- 
self from more than half the troubles 
of his life. 

KOTTim] This word is iised especi- 
ally of the labour undergone by the 
athlete in his training, and therefore 
fitly introduces the metaphor of dyco- 
vi(^6pevos : comp. i Tim. iv. 10 els tov- 
To yap Koina)jjLev Koi dycovi^op-eda (the 
correct i-eading), and see the passages 
quoted on Phil. ii. 16. 

dycovi^ofjievosl ' contending in the 
lists,' the metaphor being continued 
in the next verse (ii. i), i^XIkov dywva; 
comp. iv. 12. These woi-ds dydv, dyco- 
via, dyoivi^eadai, are only found in St 
Paul and the Pauline writings (Luke, 
Hebrews) in the New Testament. 
They occur in every group of St Paul's 
Epistles. The use here most resembles 
I Thess. 11. 2 XaXfjcrai Trpos to 
evayyeXiov tov Qeov ev ttoXXco dywvi. 

ivepynvp.evrjv'] Comp.Eph.iii. 20. For 

the diff"erence between ivepyelv and 
evepyeladai see the note on Gal. v. 6. 

II. I — 3. 'I spoke of an arenaand 
a conflict in describing my apostolic 
labours. The image was not lightly 
chosen. I would have you know that my 
care is not confined to my own direct 
and personal disciples. I wish you to 
miderstaud the magnitude of the 
struggle, which my anxiety for you 
costs me — for you and for your neigh- 
bours of Laodicea, and for all who, 
like yourselves, have never met me 
face to face in the flesh. I am con- 
stantly wrestling in spirit, that the 



[II. I, 2 

TI. ^ GeAft) yap v/ulu^ eldevaiy t]\iKOV dywi/a e^cD virep 
v/uwv Kai TCdv ev AaohiKia Kai ocroi ov^ etopuKav to 
TrpoacoTTOu juov ev (rapKi, ^'iva 7rapaK\t]6o)(rLV al Kaphiai 

hearts of all such may be confirmed 
and strengthened in the faith ; that 
they may be united in love ; that they 
may attain to all the unspeakable 
wealth which conies from the firm 
conviction of an understanding mind, 
may be brought to the perfect know- 
ledge of God's mystery, which is no- 
thing else than Christ — Christ con- 
taining in Himself all the treasures of 
wisdom and knowledge hidden away.' 

I. QeXco fc.r.X.] As in I Cor. xi. 3. 
The corresponding negative form, ov 
6fXo) [deXofifv] vfxas dyvoelv, is the more 
common expression in St Paul ; Rom. 
i. 13, xi. 25, I Cor. X. i, xii. i, 2 Cor. 
i. 8, I Thess. iv. 13. 

dycova] The arena of the contest to 
which aycovi^oixei/os in the preceding 
verse refers may be either outward or 
inward. It will include the 'fightings 
without,' as well as the 'fears within.' 
Here however the inward struggle, 
the wi-estling in prayer, is the predo- 
minant idea, as in iv. 12 iravTOTe dyavi- 
^o^evos vnep vficov ev rals irpocrtvxcus 
iva (TTadrjTe k.t.X, 

Tcov fv AaoSt/c/a] The Laodiceans 
were exposed to the same doctrinal 
perils as the Colossians: see above, 
pp. 2, 41 sq. The Hierapolitans are 
doubtless included in kqI ocroi k.t.X. 
(comp. iv. 1 3), but are not mentioned 
here by name, probably because they 
were less closely connected with Co- 
lossse (see iv. 15 sq.), and perhaps also 
because the danger was less threaten- 
ing there. 

Kai ocroi K.T.X.] 'and all who, like 
yourselves, have not seen, etc' ; where 
the K.a\ ocroi. introduces the whole class 
to which the persons previously enu- 
merated belong; so Acts iv. 6 "Away 
o ap)(^iepevs Koi Kdiacjias koX 'icoavmjs Kai 
AXe^avdpos koI ocroi rjaau (k yivovs 
dpxifpariKov, Rev. xviii. 17 kuI nas kv- 
QepvijTTjs KOI nas 6 eVi ronov irXecou Koi 

vavTai Ka\ oaoi ttjv 6aXacrcrav epyd^ov- 
Tai. Even a simple koI will sometimes 
introduce the general after the parti- 
cular, e.g. Acts V. 29 o Uerpos Kai oi 
dnocrToXoi, Ar. I^ub. 413 ev 'Adrjvaiois 

Koi Tols "EXXtjo-i, etc.; see Kuhner 
Gramm. § 521, n. p. 791. On the other 
hand koi ocroi, occurring in an enume- 
ration, sometimes introduces a different 
class from those previously mentioneii, 
as e.g. in Herod, vii. 185. As a pure 
gi'ammatical question therefore it is 
uncertain whether St Paul's language 
here implies his personal acquaintance 
with his correspondents or the con- 
trary. But in aU such cases the sense 
of the context be our guide. 
In the present instance koi ocroi is 
quite out of place, unless the Colos- 
sians and Laodiceans also were per- 
sonally unknown to the Apostle. There 
would be no meaning in singling 
out individuals who were known to 
him, and then mentioning compre- 
hensively all who were unknown to 
him : see above, p. 28, note 4. Hence 
we may infer from the expression 
here, that St Paul had never visited 
Colossse — an inference which has been 
already shown (p. 23 sq.) to accord 
both Avith the incidental language of 
this epistle elsewhere and \vith the 
direct historical narrative of the Acts. 

eapaKav'l For this ending of the 3rd 
pers. plur. perfect in -av see "Winer 
§ xiii. p. 90. The received text reads 
ecapaKacTi. In this passage the w form 
has the higher support; but below 
in ver. 18 the preponderance of au- 
thority favours iopuKev rather than 
icipaKev. On the use of the form in o 
see Buttmaun Ausf. Griech. Sprachl. 
§ 84, 1, p. 325. 

2. TTapaKXrjdcocj-iv'] * encouraged, 
confirmed,^ i. e. 'comforted' in the 
older and wider meaning of the word 
('confortati'), but not with its mo- 




avTtov, o'v/uL^if^acrdevre^ ev dyairr] Kai eh Trap ttAoi/tos 
Tt]^ 7r\r]po(bopia^ Trj^ crvvecreco^, eU eTriyvoJO'Lv -rod fjiv- 
o'Tripiov Tov Qeov, XpicTTOu ^ii/ to eicriv iravTe^ ol df]- 

(lern and restricted sense : see napd- 
kX7](tis Phil. ii. I. For TrapuKaXelv ras 
Kapbias comp. iv. 8, Ephes. vi, 22, 2 
Thess. ii. 17. 

at Kapdiai] They met the Apostle 
heart to heart, though not face to 
face. We have here the same oppo- 
sition of Kap8ia and TTpocramov as in 
I Thess. ii. 17, though less directly 
expressed ; see ver. 5. 

avTcop] Where we should expect 
vpa>v, but the substitution of the third 
person for the second is suggested by 
the immediately preceding koX 6aoi. 
This substitntion confirms the inter- 
pretation of Ka\ oa-oi. already given. 
Unless the Colossians are included in 
o<Toi, they must be excluded by uvrdv. 
Yet this exclusion is hardly conceiva- 
ble in such a context. 

avfi^i^aadevTes] ' they being united, 
compacted^ for o-u/xj3i/3afeti/ must here 
have its common meaning, as it has 
elsewhere in this and the companion 
epistle : ver. 19 hia rav acfxov koI 
(rvvSecTficov. . .(Tvp^ilia^opfvov, Ephes. iv. 
16 wav TO (Tatp-a crvvappoKoyovpevov Koi 
(Tvp^i^a^opfvov. Otherwise we might 
be disposed to assign to this verb here 
the sense which it always bears in the 
Lxx (e.g. in Is. xl. 13, 14, quoted 
in I Cor. ii. 16), 'instructed, taught,' 
as it is rendered in the Vulgate. Its 
usage in the Acts is connected with 
this latter sense; e.g. ix. 22 a-vp^i^a^asv 
'proving,' xvi. 10 avp^i^a^ovres 'con- 
cluding'; and so in xix. 33 avve^l^a- 
crav 'AXe^avSpov (the best supported 
reading) can only mean ' instructed 
Alexander.' For the different sense 
of the nominative absolute see the 
note on iii. 16. The received text 
substitutes a-vplSi^aa-devTav here. 

€V dydTTT]] For love is the avvbeapos 
(iii. 14) of perfection. 

Koi eli\ ' and brought unto^ the 
thought being supplied from the pre- 

ceding avp^i^aa-BevTfs, which involves 
an idea of motion, comp. Joh. xx. 7 

ivTeTvKiypivov els eva Tonov. 

nav TrXoCror] This reading is better 
suj)ported than either trdv to ttKovtos 
or TTavra ttKovtov, while, as the inter- 
mediate reading, it also explains the 
other two. 

Trjs rrXrjpocpoplas^ 'the full assu- 
rance' for such seems to be the 
meaning of the substantive wherever 
it occurs in the New Testament ; i 
Thess. i. 5 iv ivKr^poc^opia TToWfi, Heb. 
vi. 1 1 irpos TTjv w\r]po(j)opiav ttjs fXTri8os, 
X. 22 cV TrXrjpotpopia Trlarecos, COmp. 
Clem. Rom. 42 peTO. TrXrjpofpopias nvev- 
poTus dyiov. With the exception of 
I Thess. i. 5 however, all the Biblical 
passages might bear the other sense 
'fulness': see Bleek on Heb. vl ii. 
For the verb see the note on TrfTrXrj- 
po(jiopr]pepoi below, iv. 12. 

eTriyvwa-iv] See the note on i. 9. 

TOV pva-T-qpLov K.T.X.] ''the mystery 
of God, even Christ in whom, etc.,' 
XpiaTov being in apposition with tov 
pvaTrjpiov; COmp. i. 27 tov pva-Ttjpiov 
TOVTOV...0 fCTTiv XpiaTos ev vplv, I Tim. 
iii. 16 TO Trjs evcrejieias pv(TTr]piov,''Os 
ecpavepddr] k.t.X. The reasons for adopt- 
ing the reading tov Qeov XpiaTov are 
given in the detached note on various 
readings. Other interpretations of this 
reading are; (i) 'the God Christ,' 
taking Xpia-Tov in apposition with 
Qeoii ; or (2) 'the God of Christ,' 
making it the genitive after Qeov : 
but both expressions are without a 
parallel in St Paul. The mystery 
here is not 'Christ,' but 'Christ as 
containing in Himself all the treasures 
of wisdom' ; see the note on i. 27 
Xpia-Tos iv vplv. For the form of the 
sentence comp. Ephes. iv. 15, 16 jj Ke4>- 
aXi], XpiaTos i^ ov rrdv to aSpa k.t.X. 

3. ndvTes^ So Trap nXovTos ver. 2, 
■ndar] (To(pia ii. 28. These repetitious 



[II. 4 

aavpoi t;7s (TO(pia<s kul yuwcews dwoKpucfyoi. '^touto 

serve to emphasize the character of 
the Gospel, which is as complete in 
itself, as it is universal in its appli- 

(To(f)ias Koi yvacreais^ The two WOrds 
occur together again Rom. xi. 33 w 
^ados ttXovtov koi aocpias koi yvaxrecos 

Geou, I Cor. xii. 8. They are found 
in conjunction also several times 
in the lxx of Eccles. i. 7, 16, 18, ii. 
21, 26, ix. 10, where n03n is repre- 
sented by (To4>la and nyi by yvaxris. 
While yvwais is simply intuitive, 
o-o(f)ia is rdtiocinative also. While 
yvuKTLs applies chiefly to the appre- 
hension of traths, cro0ta superadds the 
power of reasoning about them and 
tracing their relations. When Bengel 
on I Cor. xii. 8 sq. says, ' Cognitio 
[yi'coa-ts] est quasi visus ; sapientia 
[<ro</)ia] visus cum sapore,' he is so 
far right ; but when he adds, ' cogni- 
tio, rerura agendarum ; sapientia, re- 
rum setemarum,' he is quite wide of 
the mark. Substantially the same, 
and equally wrong, is St Augustine's 
distinction de Trin. xii. 20, 25 (viii. 
PP- 9-3) 926) 'intelligendum est ad 
Contemplationem sapieutiam [o-oc^iai'], 
ad actionem scientiam [yva>cri,v\ perti- 
nere...quod alia \cro(l)ia] sit intellec- 
tualis cognitio seternarum rerum, alia 
[yvoiais] rationalis temporalium'(comp, 
xiv. 3, p. 948), and again de Die. 
Qucest. ad Simpl. ii. 2 § 3 (vi. p. 114) 
*ita discerni probabiliter solent, ut 
sapientia pertineat ad intellectum 
seternorum, scientia vero ad ea quae 
sensibus corporis experimur.' This is 
directly opposed to usage. In Aris- 
totle Eth. Nic. i. I yviKTis is opposed 
to npa^is. In St Paul it is connected 
with the apprehension of eternal mys- 
teries, I Cor. xiii. 2 e<Sc5 ra fiva-rij- 
pia Tvavra koi iracrav ttjv yvaaiv. On 

the relation of a-ocpM to a-vvea-is see 
above, i. 9. 

dTr6Kpv(f)oi] So I Cor. i. 7 XaXoC/ifv 
0eot5 (ro(piav ev /xucrrr/ptco, rrjv otto- 
Kf KpviinevT]v. As before in reXeios 

(i. 28), so here again in dn6Kpv(j)oi the 
Apostle adopts a favourite term of 
the Gnostic teachers, only that he may 
refute a favourite doctrine. The word 
apocrypha was especially applied to 
those esoteric writings, for which 
such sectarians claimed an auctoritas 
secreta (Aug. c. Faust, xi. 2, vm. p. 
219) and which they carefully guarded 
from publication after the manner of 
their Jewish prototypes the Essenes 
(see above, p. 89 sq.) : comp. Iren. i. 
20. I ap.v6r]Tov nXfidos awoKpvcfxov Koi 
v66a>v ypa(f)(av, Clem. Alex. Strom, i 
15 (p. 357) /3i/3Xovs d7roKpv(j}ovs rdv- 
8p6i Tov8e ol TTJV UpobiKOv fieTiovres 
aipecriv avx^oiicri KeKrrjdBai, lb. iii. 4 
(p. 5-4) ^PP^I ^^ avTols TO 86yna eK 

Tivos dnoKpv(f)ov. See also the appli- 
cation of the text Prov. ix. 17 aprcov 
kpv(f)io)v T/Seco? d-^aa-Qe to these heretics 
mStrom.i. 19 (p. 375). Thus the word 
apocrypha in the first instance was 
an honourable appellation appUed by 
the heretics themselves to their eso- 
teric doctrine and their secret books; 
but owing to the general character 
of these works the term, as adopted 
by orthodox writers, got to signify 
'false,' 'spurious.' The early fathers 
never apply it, as it is now applied, 
to deutero-canonical writings, but 
confine it to supposititious and he- 
retical works : see Smith's Dictionary 
of the Bible s. v. In the text St 
Paul uses it K.aTaxp-q(TTiKios, as he uses 
Hva-rripLov. ' All the richest treasures 
of that secret wisdom,' he woidd say, 
'on which you lay so much stress, 
are buried in Christ, and being buried 
there are accessible to all alike who 
seek Him.' But, while the term dwo- 
Kpv4>os is adopted because it was 
used to designate the secret doctrine 
and writings of the heretics, it is also 
entirely in keeping with the metaphor 
of the 'treasure'; e.g. Is. xlv. 3 dwa-o) 
croi 6r](Tavpovs (TKOTdvovs drroKpvcpovs, 
I Mace. i. 23 eXadf Tovs drjcravpovs 

Toiis aTTonpiKpovs, Dan. xi. 43 ^^ '''"'f 

II. 5] 



Xeyo), \va uij^ei^ v/uLci's TrapaXoyi^rjTai eV Tridai/oXoyiw 
^el yap Kai Trj aapKi aTreijULy ctWa tco irvevfjiaTL crvv 

anoKpv<pois Toi, xpv(rov Kai rov apyvpov : 
comp. Matt. xiii. 44. 

The stress thus laid on aVo*cpv0oi 
will explain its position. It is not 
connected with elaiv, but must be 
taken apart as a secondary predicate : 

comp. ver. 10 iare iv avrco nfTvKrjpat- 
fievoi, iii. l oil 6 XpiuTos iariv iv Se|ia 
Tov Qeov Kadrifjifvos, James L 17 Trap 
dcoprifxa reXeiov ava>deu fariv, KaTafSai- 
vov K. T. X. 

4 — 7. 'I do not say this mthout a 
purpose. I wish to warn you against 
any one who would lead you astray 
by specious argument aud persuasive 
rhetoric. For I am not an iudifiereut 
spectator of your doings. Although 
I am absent from you in my flesh, yet 
I am present with you in my spirit. 
I rejoice to behold the orderly array 
and the solid phalanx which your faith 
towards Christ presents against the 
assaults of the foe. I entreat you 
therefore not to abandon the Christ, 
as you learnt from Epaphras to know 
Him, even Jesus the Lord, but to walk 
stiU in Him as heretofore. I would 
have you firmly rooted once for all in 
Him. I desire to see you built up 
higher in Him day by day, to see you 
growing ever stronger and stronger 
through your faith, while you remain 
true to the lessons taught you of old, 
so that you may abound in it, and thus 
abounding may pour forth your hearts 
in gratitude to God the giver of all.' 

4. TOVTO Xeya /c.r.X.] ' I say all 

this to you, lest you should be led 
astray by those false teachers who 
speak of another knowledge, of other 
mysteries.' In other connexions tov- 
To Xe'yo) win frequently refer to the 
words following (e.g. Gal. iii. 17, i Cor. 
i 12); but with Iva it points to what 
has gone before, as in Joh. v. 34 ravra 
Xeyo) tfa vfiels arcoOfJTe. 

The reference in tovto Xeyw extends 
over vv. i — 3, and involves two state- 

ments ; (i) The declaration that all 
knowledge is comprehended in Christ, 
TV. 2, 3; (2) The expression of his own 
personal anxiety that they should re- 
main stedfast in this conviction, vv. 
I, 2. This last point explains the lan- 
guage which follows, et yap koi rg 
(rapici K.T.X. 

TrapaXoyl^rjrai] ''lead you astray hy 
false reasoning,^ as in Daniel xiv. 7 
Hrjbfis ere napaXoyiCeo-dco (lxx): COmp. 
James i. 22, Ign. Magn. 3. It is not 
an uncommon word either in the lxx 
or in classical writers. The system 
against which St Paul here contends 
professed to be a <pi\o(To(j)ia (ver. 8) 
and had a Xoyov croi^ias (ver. 23). 

iv nidavokoyia] The words iriOavo- 
Xoyeii/ (Arist. Mh. Nic. i. l), Trt^awXo- 
yia (Plat. Thecet. 162 e), Tn6av6koyi.- 

Kos (Epictet. i. 8. 7), occur occasion- 
ally in classical writers, but do not 
bear a bad sense, being most fre- 
quently opposed to aTToSet^is, as pro- 
bable ai'gument to strict mathemati- 
cal demonstration. This contrast pro- 
bably suggested St Paul's language in 
I Cor. ii. 4 o^< iv ireiOols croc^ias X6- 
yois dXX' iv dnodei^f I ivvevp,aros 

K.T.X., and may possibly have been 
present to his mind here. 

5. dXXd] Frequently introduces the 
apodosis after el or ft koI in St Paul ; 
e.g. Rom. vi. 5, i Cor. ix. 2, 2 Cor. iv. 
16, v. 16, xi. 6, xiii. 4 (v. 1.). 

Tw TTvevfiari] 'in my spirit,'' not 
'by the Spirit.' We have here the 
common antithesis of flesh and spirit, 
or body and spirit : comp. i Cor. v. 3 
djrav ra amfiari, izapav de tw Trvevfiari. 
St Paul elsewhere uses another anti- 
thesis, Trpoo-corra and Kapdia, to express 
this same thing; i Thess. ii. 17. 

xaLpav KUL /SXeVcoj/] ' rejoicing and 
beholding.' This must not be regarded 
as a logical inversion. The contem- 
plation of their orderly array, though 
it might have been first the cause, 



[II. 6 

v/uiv eljui, ■^a'lpcov kui fSXeTTCov vfitov t)}v Ta^Lv kul to 
aTepecofjLa Tt]<5 eU XpLcrroi/ Tricrrecos vjuwv. ^w^ ovv irap- 
eXajSere tov XpiaTOVy 'hjo'ovi' tov Kvpiouy ev avrw vrepi- 

was afterwards the consequence, of 
the Apostle's rejoicing. He looked, 
because it gave him satisfaction to 

rriv ra^iv] 'your Orderly array ^ a 
military metaphor: comp. e.g. Xen. 

Anai>. i. 2. 18 Idovaa riju XafiirpoTrjra 
Koi TTjp Tci^iv TOV aTpaTevjjLaT09 edav- 
fxaa-e, Plut. Fit. Pyrrh. 16 /cartScoi' 
Ta^LV Te Koi (f>v\aKas koi Kocr^iov avraiv 
Koi TO (TX^P-O- Tiys (TTparoTTedfias i6av- 
fiaae. The enforced companionship 
of St Paul with the soldiers of the 
praetorian guard at this time (Phil. i. 
13) might have suggested this image. 
At all events in the contemporary 
epistle (Ephes. vi. 14 sq.) we have an 
elaborate metaphor from the armour 
of a soldier. 

TO a-Tepioajxa] ' solid front, close 
pluxlanx^ a continuation of the me- 
taphor: comp. I Mace. ix. 14 eiSei/ 

'loi;5ay ort ^aKylhr]^ (cat to CTTepecopxi 
Trjs Trapep^oXfjs ev Tols Be^iols. Some- 
what similar are the expressions are- 

peovv TOV TTokfp.ov I Mace. X. 50, KaTCl 
Ttjv (TTepeaiaiv ttjs pa.)(T]i Ecclus. xxviii. 
10. For the connexion here compare 
I Pet. V. 9 avTicrrrjTe crrepeol TJj Tr/crret, 
Acts xvi. 5 firrepfovvTo Tjj ir'ia-Tfi. 

6. (OS ovv 7rapeXa/3eT6 k.t.X.] i.e. 
' Let your conviction and conduct be 
in perfect accordance with the doc- 
trines and precepts of the Gospel as 
it was taught to you.' For this use 
of 7rap€\a^€re 'ye received from yom' 
teachers, were insti'ucted in,' comp. 
I Cor. XV. I, 3, Gal. i. 9, Phil. iv. 9, 
I Thess. ii. 13, iv. i, 2 Thess. iii. 6. 
The word irapaXaplBaveiv implies either 
'to receive as transmitted,' or ' to re- 
ceive for transmission': see the note 
on Gal. i. 12. The wr of the protasis 
suggests a oiJrwy in the ajwdosis, which 
in this case is unexpressed but must 
be understood. The meaning of ws 

TrapfXd^ere here is explained by the 

Kadais ip.adiT€ drro 'Eiracfipa in i. 7j see 

the note there, and comp. below, ver. 7 

Kadas f8i8ax6r]Te. 

TOV Xpia-Tov] ^the Christ,^ rather 
than 'the Gospel,' because the central 
point in the Colossian heresy was the 
subversion of the true idea of the 

^irjaovv TOV Kvptoi/] *even Jesus the 
Lord,^ in whom the true conception 
of the Christ is realised : comp. Ephes. 

iv. 20, 21, vpeis be ovx ovtojs ep-adere 
TOV X.piaTov, eiye avTov TjKoinrare koi 
ev avTco e8i8dxd']Te, Kadcos i<TTiv a\rj- 

6eia ev rw '\r)(jov, where the same 
idea is more directly expressed. The 
genuine doctrine of the Christ con- 
sists in (i) the recognition of the his- 
torical person Jesus, and (2) the ac- 
ceptance of Him as the Lord. This 
doctrine was seriously endangered by 
the mystic theosophy of the false 
teachers. The same order which we 
have here occurs also in Ephes. iii. 1 1 
ev rw XpioTco \r](TOv rw Kupto) r^pHv 
(the correct reading). 

7. tppifojpeVoi] Two points may 
be noticed here; (i) The expressive 
change of tenses; eppi^apevoi 'firmly 
rooted' once for all, ewoiKo8ofj.ovnevoi, 
^e^aiovpevoi, 'built up and strength- 
ened ' from hour to hour. (2) The 
rapid transition of metaphor, nepi- 
Trarelre, eppi^uipevoi, eiroKodopovpevoi, 

the path, the tree, the building : comp. 

Ephes. iii. 17 eppi^otpevoi koI TeOepe- 
\iapevoi. The metaphors of the plant 
and the building occur together in 
I Cor. iii. 9 Qeov yedpyiov, Qeov oIko- 
8oprj. The transition in this passage 
is made easier by the fact that pi(ovv 
(Plut. 3Ior. 321 d), eKpt^ovv (Jer. i. 10, 
I Mace. V. 51), iTp6ppi(,os (Jos. B. J. 
vii. 8. 7), etc., are not uncommonly 
used of cities and buildings. 


TraTetTe, "^ippi^M^euoi Kai eTroiKodojULOvjuevoi ev avTw kui 
l3e/3aiouiJ.6voi Ttj TTLCTTeij Ka6(jo<s edihd^6r]T6, 7repL(raev- 
ovTe<5 ev avTrj ev ev^^apicma. 

eiToiKo8ofj.oviievoi] ' being built up^ 
as in I Cor. iii. lo — 14, After this 
verb we might have expected eV 
auVo) or eV avTov (i Cor. iii. 12) 
rather than tV auVoi ; but in this 
and the companion epistle Christ is 
represented rather as the binding 
element than as the foundation of the 
building : e. g. Ephes. ii. 20 eVoi/coSo- 
firjdefTfs eVt tc5 de/itXico rav aTroaToXaiv 
Koi 7rpo(f>T]Toiv, ovTos aKpoycouiaiov 
avToii XpiarTov 'hjcrov, ev co ivaaa [ij] 
olKoSofifj av^ei els vaov ayiov iv Kvpico, 
iv a Kol vfiels <TVvoiKo8op,e'icrOe. The 
errt in eVotKoSo/Lieii' does not neces- 
sarily refer to the original foundation, 
but may point to the continued pro- 
gress of the building by successive 
layers, as e.g. [Aristot.] Bhet. ad Alex. 
4 (p. 1426) inoiKobojxovvTa ro drepov ds 
en\ ro erepov av^eiv. Hence inomo- 
Sofielv is frequently used absolutely, 
'to build up' (e.g. Jude 20, Polyb. 
iii. 27. 4), as here. The repetition of 
ev avra emphasizes the main idea of 
the passage, and indeed of the whole 

TTJ TTt'o-rft] 'by your faith^ the 
dative of the instrument; comp. Heb. 

xiii. 9 Kokov yap )(^apiTi ^e^aiovcrdai 

rrjv KapBiav. Faith is, as it were, the 
cement of the building : comp. Clem. 
Rom. 22 ravra iravra ^e^aiol ij ev 
X/}iaT<B TTicrrij. 

Kadcos e8i8dx6r]Te'] 1. e. ' remaining 
true to the lessons which you re- 
ceived from Epaphras, and not led 
astray by any later pretenders': comp. 
i. 6, 7 eu dXTjdfia, Kadas epaBere ano 

ev avrfi k.t.X.] The same ending 
occurs in iv. 2. Thanksgiving is the 
end of all human conduct, whether 
exhibited in words or in works. For 
the stress laid on thanksgiving in St 
Paul's epistles generally, see the note 

on Phil. iv. 6. The words evxdpiaros, 

eiixapL(TTelv, ev)(api(TTia, OCCUr in St 
Paul's writings alone of the Apostohc 
epistles. In this epistle especially 
the duty of thanksgiving assumes a 
peculiar prominence by being made 
a refrain, as here and in iii. 15, 17, 
iv. 2: see also i. 12. 

8 — 15. 'Be on your guard; do not 
suffer yourselves to fall a prey to 
certain persons who would lead yuu 
captive by a hollow and deceitful 
system, which they call philosophy. 
They substitute the traditions of men 
for the truth of God. They enforce 
an elementary disciphne of mundane 
ordinances fit only for children. Theirs 
is not the Gospel of Christ. In Christ 
the entire fulness of the Godhead 
abides for ever, having united itself 
with man by taking a human body. 
And so in Him — not in any inferior 
mediators — ye have your life, your 
being, for ye are filled from His 
fulness. He, I say, is the Head over 
all spiritual beings — call them prin- 
cipalities or powers or what you will. 
In Him too ye have the true circum- 
cision — the circumcision which is not 
made with hands but wrought by 
the Spirit — the circumcision which 
divests not of a part only but of the 
whole carnal body — the circumcision 
which is not of Moses but of Christ. 
This circumcision ye have, because ye 
were buried with Christ to your old 
selves beneath the baptismal waters, 
and were raised with Him from those 
same waters to a new and regenerate 
life, through your faith in the power- 
ful working of God who raised Him 
from the dead. Yes, you — you Gen- 
tiles who before were dead, when ye 
walked in your transgressions and in 
the uncircumcision of your unchastened 
carnal heathen heart — even you did 



[II. 8 

8. fJLT^ TIS I 

God quicken into life together with 
Christ; then and there freely for- 
giving all of us— Jews and Gentiles 
alike — all our transgressions ; then and 
there cancelling the bond which stood 
valid against us (for it bore our own 
signature), the bond which engaged us 
to fulfil all the law of ordinances, which 
was our stern pitiless tyrant. Aye, 
this very bond hath Christ put out 
of sight for ever, nailing it to His 
cross and rending it with His body 
and killing it in His death. Taking 
upon Him our human nature. He 
stripped oflf and cast aside all the 
powers of evil which clung to it like a 
poisonous garment. Asa mighty con- 
queror He displayed these His fallen 
enemies to an astonished world, lead- 
ing them in triumph on His cross.' 

8. BXeVere /c.t.X.] The form of the 
sentence is a measui-e of the imminence 
of the peril. The usual construction 
with jBXeireLv [xt] is a conjunctive ; e.g. 
in Luke xxi. 8 ^Xenere firj irkavr^OriTe. 
Here the substitution of an indicative 
shows that the danger is real ; comp. 
Heb. iii. 12 /SXeVere fir)TTOTe earai eu 
Tivi vncov Kap8la Tvovrjpa diTicrTias. For 
an example of nf] with a future indi- 
cative see Mark xiv. 2 /xrJTrore eorai 
Oopv^os; and comp. Winer § hi. p. 
631 sq. 

Tis] This indefinite ns is frequently 
used by St Paul, when speaking of 
opponents whom he knows well 
enough but does not care to name : 
see the note on Gal. i. 7. Comp. Ign. 

Smyrn. 5 ovrives dyvoovvTes dpvovv- 
Tai...Ta 8e ovopLara avrcov, ovra anicTTa, 
OVK 'ibo^i p.01 fyypa-ylrai. 

avXaycoyav] ' makes you his prey, 
carries you off body and souL' The 
word appears not to occur before St 
Paul, nor after him, independently of 
thispas8age,tillalatedate:e.g. Hchod. 
Aeth. X. 35 oxiToi ia-Tiv 6 TTju iiirjv 6v- 
yaripa (Tvkay<xiyr]aas. In Tatian ad 
Graec. 22 vpt'is 8e vwo tovtcov avKayco- 

(7Ta(. vfids. 

yda6e it seems to be a reminiscence 
of St Paul Its full and proper mean- 
ing, as appears from the passages 
quoted, is not 'to despoil,' but 'to 
carry off as spoil,' in accordance vrith 
the analogous compounds, dovXayco- 
ye2v, anevayayfiv. So too the closely 
allied word Xacfyvpaycoyelv in Plut. 
3for. p. 5 TToXe^os yap ov Xacfivpayayel 
dpeTT)v, Vit. Galh. 5 to ixev YaXarav, 
orav xnTO^fipioi yevcovTat, Xa(f)vpaya>yri- 
crea-dai. The Colossians had been res- 
cued from the bondage of darkness ; 
they had been transferred to tlie 
kingdom of light ; they had been 
settled there as fi-ee citizens (i. 12, 
13); and now there was danger that 
they should fall into a state worse 
than their former slavery, that they 
should be carried oflf as so much 
booty. Comp. 2 Tim. iii. 6 alxjidXco- 
Ti^ovres yvvaiKapia. 

For the construction ecrrat o avXa- 
•ycoycai' See the notes on Gal. i. 7, iii. 21. 
The former passage is a close parallel 
to the words here, el pLij nves elcriv ol 
rapdcrcrovres vfxas k.t.X. The expres- 
sion o avXaycoyav gives a directness 
and individuality to the reference, 
which would have been wanting to the 
more natural construction os avXayai- 

dia Tfjs (f)iXo(To(pias K.T.X.] ' through 
h is philosophy ichich is an empty de- 
ceit^ The absence of both preposition 
and article in the second clause shows 
that Kfi/vs dTrar?;? describes and quali- 
fies (f)iXo(TO(f)ias. Clement therefore 
{Strorn. vi. 8, p. 771) had a right to 
contend that St Paul does not here 
condemn ' philosophy' absolutely. The 
(pi.Xo(To(f)La Koi Kevij dnaTi] of this pas- 
sage corresponds to the yj/ev8cJvvp,os 
yvioa-LS of I Tim. vi. 20. 

But though 'philosophy' is not 
condemned, it is disparaged by the 
connexion in which it is placed. St 
Chrysostom's comment is not altoge- 
ther wrong, iTTftbrj 8oK(l crefivov tivai to 

II. 8] 



TfJ£ (pL\o(ro(pias kui K6vf]9 d7raTr]<s, Kara Ti]V Trapd- 

TTjS (j)l\o(TO(j)iaS, TVpO(T(dr]K€ Koi Kfvrjs 

dnaTris. The term was doubtless used by 
the false teachers themselves to de- 
scribe their system. Though essentially 
Greek as a name and as an idea, it 
had found its way into Jewish circles. 
Philo speaks of the Hebrew religion 
and Mosaic law as j; irarpios 4>i\o(To- 
(f)ia {Leg. ad Gai. 23, 11. p. 568, de 
Somn, ii. 18, i. p. 675) or rj 'JovSa'iKri 
(f)i\o(To(})ia {Lcff. adGai. 33, 11. p. 582) 

or rj nara McoiJct^i/ ({)iXo(TO(pia {de Mut. 

Nom. 39, I. p. 612). The system of 
the Kssenes, the probable progenitors 
of the false teachers at Colossse, he 
describes as jj ^Ixa wepiepyeias 'EXXt]- 
viKav ovop-aroiv (})iko(TO(pia {Omn. 2yroh. 

lib. 13, II. p. 459). So too Josephus 
speaks of the three Jewish sects as 
rpeh (pi.\o(ro(f)Lai{A7it. xviii. I. 2, comp. 
B.J. ii. 8. 2). It should be remem- 
bered also, that in this later age, 
owing to Roman influence, the term 
was used to describe practical not less 
than speculative systems, so that it 
would cover the ascetic life as well as 
the mystic theosophy of these Colos- 
sian heretics. Hence the Apostle is 
here flinging back at these false teach- 
ers a favourite term of their own, 'their 
vaunted philosophy, which is hollow 
and misleading.' 

The word indeed could claim a truly 
noble origin ; for it is said to have 
arisen out of the humility of Py- 
thagoras, who called himself ' a lover 

of wisdom,' [j.T)8eva yap elvai cro(f)6i> 

avdpcoTTov aXX' rj Qeov (Diog. Laert. 
Prooem. § 12; comp. Cic. Tusc. v. 3). 
In such a sense the term would en- 
tirely accord with the spirit and teach- 
ing of St Paul ; for it bore testimony 
to the insufficiency of the human in- 
tellect and the need of a revelation. 
But in his age it had coma to be asso- 
ciated generally with the idea of subtle 
dialectics and profitless speculation ; 
while in this particular instance it was 
combined with a mystic cosmogony 
and angelology which contributed a 

fresh element of danger. As con- 
trasted with the power and fulness 
and certainty of revelation, all such 
philosophy was 'foolishness' (i Cor. 
i. 20). It is worth observing that this 
word, which to the Greeks denoted 
the highest effort of the intellect, oc- 
curs here alone in St Paul, just as he 
uses dpfTT], which was their term to 
express the highest moral excellence, 
in a single passage only (Phil, iv, 8 ; 
see the note there). The reason is 
much the same in both cases. The 
Gospel had deposed the terms as 
inadequate to the higher standard, 
whether of knowledge or of practice, 
which it had introduced. 

On the attitude of the fathers to- 
wards philosophy, while philosophy 
was a living thing, see Smith's I)ic- 
tionary of the Bible s.v. Clement, 
who was followed in the main by the 
earher Alexandrine fathers, regards 
Greek philosophy not only as a pre- 
liminary training {Trponaibela) for the 
Gospel, but even as in some sense a 
covenant {diadr^Krj) given by God to the 
Greeks {Strom, i. 5, p. 331, vi. 5, p. 761, 
ib. § 8, p. 771 sq.). Others, who were 
the great majority and of whom Ter- 
tullian may be taken as an extreme 
type, set their faces directly against 
it, seeing in it only the parent of all 
heretical teaching : e. g. de Anim. 2, 3, 
Apol. 46, 47. In the first passage, 
referring to this text, he says, ' Ab 
apostolo jam tunc philosophia con- 
cussio veritatis providebatur'; in the 
second he asks, ' Quid simile philo- 
sophus et Christianus ? ' St Paul's 
speech at Athens, on the only oc- 
casion when he is known to have 
been brought into direct personal 
contact with Greek philosophers (Acts 
xvii. 18), shows that his sympathies 
would have been at least as much 
with Clement's representations as with 

Kara (c.r.X.] The false teaching is 
described (i) As regards its source— 



[11. 8 

docriu Tuiv dv6pu>7ro3v, Kara to. crTOi-)(^eIa tou koc^ov. 

'the tradition of ?«^?i'; (2) As regards 
its subject matter — ' the rudimeuts of 
the world.' 

Trjv Trapaboaiv k.t.X.] Other systems, 
as for instance the ceremonial niishna 
of the Pharisees, might fitly be de- 
scribed in this way (Matt. xv. 2 sq., 
Mark vii. 3 sq.) : but such a descrip- 
tion was peculiarly apjiropriate to a 
mystic theosophy like this of the Co- 
lossian false teachers. The teacliing 
might be oral or written, but it was 
essentially esoteric, essentially tradi- 
tional. It could not appeal to sacred 
books which had been before all the 
world for centuries. The Essenes, 
the immediate spiritual progenitors 
of these Colossiau heretics, distinct- 
ly claimed to possess such a source 
of knowledge, which they carefully 
guarded from divulgence ; B. J. ii. 8. 7 
(TVVTrjprjcreiv ofioiayi ra re rrjs aipfa^cos 
avrdv |3t/3Xta kuI ra tu>v dyyeXmv ovo- 
fiara (see above pp. 87, 88 sq., 93). 
The various Gnostic sects, their direct 
or collateral spiritual descendants, 
almost Avithout exception traced their 
doctrines to a similar source : o. g. 

Hippol. Haer.Y. 7 a 4>r](T\ TrapaSeSw- 
Kevai MapiaiiVT] rov ^laKcu^ov rod Kv- 
piov Tov dSeX^oi/, vii. 20 (})a(T\v flprjKevai 
Mardiav avTols Xoyovy aTroKpv(povs ovs 
rJKovcre napa tov acorfjpos, Clem. Alex. 
Strotn. vii. 17 (p. 89S) Kadanep 6 Bacn- 
XfiSrjs, Kau TXavKiav eTTiypacpijTCH SiSii- 
CTKoXoVy CO? av)(ovaiv avTOi, tov UfTpov 
ipfXTjvea' coaavro)! 8e koX OvaXtwlvov 
Qeoda dLaKrjKoivai cptpovcnu, yvcopifj.os 
8e ovTOS eyeyovei Uavkov. So toO a 

later mystic theology of the Jews, 
which had many afiinities with the 
teaching of the Christianized Essenes 
at Colossse, was self- designated Kab- 
bala or 'tradition,' professing to have 
been handed down orally from the 
patriarchs. See the note on dn6Kpv(f)oi, 
ii. 3. 

TO a-Toixe'ici] ' the rudiments, the 
elementary teaching''; comp. ver. 20. 
The same phrase occurs again Gal. iv. 

3 (comp. ver. 9). As crrotx«'a signifies 
primarily 'the letters of the alphabet,' 
so as a secondary meaning it denotes 
' rudimentary instruction.' Accord- 
ingly it is correctly interpreted by 
Clement AS'^r(^m. vi. 8(p.77i)naiXos ... 

ovK eVi iTaKivbpop.e1v a^iol ctti tt^v EX- 
\tjvik^v cjiiKoaocfjiav, aroixe^a tov ko- 
crpiov TavTrjv dXXrjyopSv, crrot;(eicortKrji» 
Tiva ovcrav (i.e. elementarj') Ka\ irpo- 
iraibeiav Trjs d\T]de[as (comp. ib. vl. 1 5, 
p. 799), and by Tertullian adv. Marc. 
V. 19 'secundum elemcnta mundi, nou 
secundum caelum et terram dicens, 
sed secundum litteras seculares.' A 
large number of the fathers however 
explained the expression to refer to 
the heavenly bodies (called oTot^f '«)> 
as marking the seasons, so that the 
observance of 'festivals and new- 
moons and sabbaths' was a sort of 
bondage to tlicm. It would appear 
from Tertullian's language that Mar- 
cion also had so interpreted the 
words. On this false interpretation 
see the note on Gal. iv. 3. It is quite 
out of place here: for (i) The context 
suggests some mode of instruction^ 

e.g. TTiv TvapdSoa-iv tcov dvdpanrav here, 
and hoyp-aTi^fade in ver. 20 ; (2) The 
keeping of days and seasons is quite 
subordinate to other external ob- 
servances. The rite of circumcision 
(ver. 11), and the distinction of meats 
(ver. 21), respectively, are placed in 
close and immediate connexion with 

TO. crToi\iia tou Kocrfiov iu tlie two 

places where it occurs, whereas the 
observance of days and seasons (ver. 1 6) 
stands apart from either. 

TOV Koa-fiov] ' 0/ the world' that is, 
' belonging to the sphere of material 
and external things.' See the notes 
on Gal. iv. 3, vi. 14. 

' In Christ,' so the Apostle seems 
to say, ' you have attained the liberty 
and the intelligence of manhood ; do 
not submit yourselves again to a rudi- 
mentary discipline fit only for chil- 
dren {to. o-Toixftcj). In Christ you 


Kai ou Kara XpLCTTOV ^otl eV auTM KaTOiKel irdv to 
TrXtjpcofxa Ttjs deonjTO^ (ToofxaTLKw^y ^°Kai ecTTe iu uvtm 

have been exalted into the sphere of 
the Spirit: do not plunge yourselves 
again into the atmosphere of material 
and sensuous things {tov K6(jfiov).' 

ov Kara XpiaTov] ' not after Christ.' 
This expression is wide in itself, and 
should be interpreted so as to supply 
the negative to both the preceding 
clauses ; ' Christ is neither the author 
nor the substance of their teaching : 
not the author, for they listen to hu- 
man traditions (Kara ttjv Trapadoaiu 
rOiv dvdpcoTvav) ; not the substance, for 
they replace Him by formal ordinances 
[Kara to. aroi^^fia tov Koap-ov) and by 
angelic mediators.' 

9 sq. Iu explaining the true doc- 
trine which is 'after Christ,' St Paul 
condemns the two false principles, 
which lay at the root of this heretical 
teaching; (i) The ^Aeo^o^'/ca^ error of 
substituting inferior and created be- 
ings, angelic mediators, for the divine 
Head Himself (vv. 9, 10) ; and (2) The 
practical error of insisting upon ritual 
and ascetic observances as the foun- 
dation of their moral teaching (vv. 1 1 
— 14). Their theological speculations 
and their ethical code alike were at 
fault. On the intimate connexion be- 
tween these two errors, as springing 
out of a common root, the Gnostic 
dualism of these false teachers, see 
the introduction, pp. 33 sq., yy, 85, 
112 sq. 

on K.T.X.] The Apostle justifies the 
foregoing charge that this doctrine 
was not (caret Xpia-Tov ; ' In Christ 
dwells the whole pleroma, the entire 
fulness of the Godhead, whereas they 
represent it to you as dispersed among 
several spiritual agencies. Christ is 
the one fountain-head of all spiritual 
life, whereas they teach you to seek it 
in communion with inferior creatures.' 
The same truths have been stated be- 
fore (i. 14 sq.) more generally, and they 
are now restated, with direct and im- 

mediate reference to the heretical 

KOToiKel] 'has its Jixed dbode^ On 
the force of this compound in relation 
to the false teaching, see the note on 

i- 19- ^ ^ 

Tvav TO nkrjpana] 'all the plenitude' 
' the totality of the divine powers and 
attributes.' On this theological term 
see i. 19, and the detached note at the 
end of the epistle. 

1-7? deoTrjTos] 'of the Godhead.' 
' Non mode divinae virtutes, sed ipsa 
divina natura,' writes Bengel. For 
the difference between BeoTrjs ' deltas,' 
the essence, and dfioTijs ' divinitas,' 
the quality, see Trench N. T. Syn. 
§ ii. p. 6. The different force of 
the two words may be seen by a 
comparison of two passages in Plu- 
tarch, Mar. p. 857 A TVCKTIV AlyVTTTLOlS 
deioTTjTU iroXkijv Kai diKaioavprjv p,ap- 

Tvpt^a-as (where it means a divine 
inspiration or faculty, and where no 
one would have used deoTtjTo), and 

Mor. 415 C Ik fie ijpdcov els 8aip.ova9 ai 
/SeAr/ot'ey ylrvxal ttjv p.€TalioXfjv Xap-iSa- 
vovcriv, eK Se daifiovcov oXiyat p.€v eVi 
Xpovco TToXka St' dpeTJJs Kadapde'iaat 
TTavTiiTracn Oeor-qTos p-fTeaxov (where 

deioTrjTos would be quite out of place, 
because all 8aifMoves without exception 
were Se'Lot, though they only became 
6eol in rare instances and after long 
probation and discipline). In the 
New Testament the one word occurs 
here alone, the other in Rom. i. 20 
alone. So also to Belov, a very favour- 
ite expression in Greek philosophy, is 
found once only, in Acts xvii. 29, where 
it is used with singular propriety ; for 
the Apostle is there meeting the hea- 
then philosophers on their own ground 
and arguing with them in their own 
language. Elsewhere he instinctively 
avoids a term which tends to obscure 
the idea of a personal God. In the 
Latin versions, owing to the poverty of 

I So 


[II. lO 

7re7r\t]pcDiuL6V0if o<s eo-Tiv i] KecpaXi) Tracr;/? (^px^l^ '^^^ 

the language, both deorrjs and 6fujTr]s 
are translated by the same term dici- 
nitas; but this was felt to be inade- 
quate, and the word dcitas was coined 
lit a later date to represent 6e6TT]s: 
August, de Civ. Dei vii. § i, vii. \}. 162 
(quoted in Trench) ' Hanc divinitatem 
vel, ut sic dixerim, deitatem : nam et 
hoc verbo uti jam nostros non piget, 
ut do Graeco expressius transferant id 
quod illi d(6Tr]Ta appellant etc.' 

o-to/xariKwy] ' bodilp-wise,' ^corpo- 
I'calli/,^ i. e. ' assuming a bodily form, 
becoming incarnate.' This is an ad- 
dition to the previous statement in 

i. 19 eV avTco evdoKTjcrfV nav to 7r\yjpa)fJ.a 
KaroiKijcrai. The indwelling of the ple- 
roma refers to the Eternal Word, and 
not to the Incarnate Christ: but o-w- 
fiariKois is added to show that the 
Word, in whom the pleroma thus had 
its abode from all eternity, crowned 
His work by the Incarnation. Thus 
while the main statement KaroiKel nap 
TO 7i\r]pui}xa Trjs BeoTTjTos of St Paul 
coiTesponds to the opening sentence 
6 Xoyo? rjv irpos tov Qeov koX Qeos ']p 6 
Xoyos of St John, the subsidiary ad- 
verb (TcofjiaTiKcos of St Paul has its 
counterpart in the additional state- 
ment KoX 6 Xoyos a-ap^ eyevtTo of St 
John. All other meanings which have 
been assigned to a-(o[iaTiKcos here, as 
'wholly' (llieron. in Is. xi. i sq., iv. 
p. 1 56, ' nequaquam per partes, ut iu 
ceteris Sanctis'), or 'really' (Aug. Epist. 
cxlix, II. p. 5 13 ' Ideo corporaliter dixit, 
quia illi umbratiliter seducebant '), or 
'essentially' (Hilar, de Trin. viii. 54, 
II. p. 252 ' Dei ex Deo siguificat veri- 
tatem etc.,' Cyril. Alex, in Theodoret. 

Op. V. p. 34 TOVTf(TTl.V, OV (TXfTlKQIS, 

Isid. Pelus. £!p. iv. 166 dvrl rod ovai- 
tuSws), are unsupported by usage. Nor 
again can the body be understood of 
anything else but Christ's human body ; 
as for instance of the created World 
(Theod. Mops, iu Rab. Op. vi. p. 522) 
or of the Church (Anon, in Chrysost. ad 
loc). According to these two last inter- 

pretations TO n\ripa>fxa rrjs deorrjros is 
taken to mean the Universe (' univer- 
sam naturam replctam ab eo') and the 
Church {rfjp eKKXrja-iap T7e7r\r]p(oiJ.ev7]p 
vTo TTJs dfoTTjTos avTov, see Ephes. i. 23) 
respectively, because either of these 
may be said to reside in Him, as the 
source of its life, and to stand to Him 
in the relation of the body to the 
head {a-Q}fj.aTiKoos). But these forced 
interpretations have nothing to re- 
commend them. 

St Paul's language is carefully 
guarded. He does not say eV a-afian, 
for the Godhead cannot be confined 
to any limits of space ; nor o-m/^iaroet- 
Scoy, for this might suggest the un- 
reality of Christ's human body; but 
acofiaTiKois, ' in bodily wise,' ' with a 
bodily manifestation.' The relation of 
a-cofiaTiKas to the clause which it quali- 
fies will vary with the circumstances, 
e.g. Plut. J/or. p. 424 E TO fifaop 
OV TOTTiKoJs aXXa trcojtiartKcoff Xeyeadai, 
i.e. 'ratione corporis habita,' Athan. 
Exp. Fid. 4 (l. p. 81) (xaifiariKas els 
TOP 'lr]crovp yeypanTai, i.e. 'secundum 

corpus,' Ptolem. in Epiphan. Ilaer. 
XXxiiL 5 Kara fxep to (paivojjLepop Koi 
(Toj/^ariKO)? itcTeXela'dM nvTjpidrj, Orig. C. 
Cels. ii. 69 dc^avrj yfviaQai aanaTiKois, 
lb. vi. 68 Koi (r<a /xar J (CO) y ye XaXovfievos, 
Macar. Magn. iii. 14 crw/xartKwf x'^'P'" 
^eiv rail' fiadrjToJp. 

10. Koi earre iv avVw] ^ and ye are 
in Him,' where eVre should be sepa- 
rated from the following ireirXrjpuiixe- 
voi; comp. John xvii. 21, Acts x\ii. 28. 
True life consists in union with Him, 
and not in dependence on any inferior 
being; comp. ver. 19 ov Kparmv tt)v 
Ke(f)aXijp, e'l ov k.t.X. 

TTeTrXrjpcop.evoi] ' being fulfilled^ with 
a direct reference to the preceding 
■!vXrip<>>p.a; 'Your fulness comes from 
His fulness ; His irX^pcofia is trans- 
fused into you by virtue of your in- 
corpoi-ation in Him.* So too John 
i. 16 eK TOV T7Xr]p(0fJ.aT0S avTov r]p.eis 
navres iXa^op,fv, Ephes. iii. 19 iva ttXtj- 

II. Il] 



e^ouo'ia^' "eV co kcil TrepieTjutjdtjTe TrepiTOjut] d^eipo- 

pcodtJTe fls Trav to irkrjpcofxa tov Oeov, 
iv, 13 fls jJ-irpov jJXtKiay tov jrXfjpco/ia- 
Tos TOV XpiaTov, comp. Ign. IJjjhes. 
init. Tjj evXoyr] fievr] iv payidei Qeov 
narpos %\r]pa>pari. Hence also the 
Church, as ideally regarded, is called 
the irXijpcopa of Christ, because all His 
gi'aces and energies are communicated 
to her; Ephes. i. 23 tJth iariv to acopa 
uvTov, to 7rXr]pu)p,a tov to navTa eu ttci- 
aiu irXripovp-evov. 

os] For the various reading S sec 
the detached note. It was perhaps a 
correction made on the false suppo- 
sition that eV aOrw referred to the 
nXrjpoip.a. At aU events it must be re- 
garded as an impossible reading; for 
the image would be altogether con- 
fused and lost, if the Tv\ripa>pa were 
represented as the head. And again 
ri Kf<pa\rj is persistently said elsewhere 
of Christ; i. 18, ii. 19, Ephes. i. 22, 
iv. 15, V. 23. Hilary de Trin. ix. 8 
(11. p. 264) explains the o as referring 
to the whole sentence to eivai iv avra 
iTenXT]pa)p.fvovs, but this also is an in- 
conceivable sense. Again it has been 
suggested that 6 ia-Tiv (like TovTea-Tiv) 
may be taken as equivalent to scilicet 
(comp. Clem. Horn. viii. 22); but this 
would require tjj Ke(paXjj, even if it 
were otherwise admissible here. 

7) Ke0aX)f ] The image expresses much 
more than the idea of sovereignty : the 
head is also the centre of vital force, 
the source of all energy and life; see 
the note on ver. 19. 

iraarjs apx^is K.r.X.] ' of everp prin- 
cipality and power,' and therefore 
of those angelic beings whom the 
false teachers adopted as mediators, 
thus transferring to the uiferior mem- 
bers the allegiance due to the Head : 
comp. ver. 18 sq. For dpxrjs koI i^ov- 
a-ias, see the note on 1. 16. 

II. The previous verses liave dealt 
with the theological tenets of the false 
teachers. The Apostle now turns to 
their practical errors ; ' You do not 
need the circumcision of the flesh ; 

for you have received the circumcision 
of the heart. The distinguishing fea- 
tures of tiiis higher circumcision are 
threefold, (i) It is not external but 
inward, not made with hands but 
wrought by the Spirit. (2) It divests 
not of a part only of the flesh, but of 
the whole body of carnal affections. 
(3) It is the circumcision not of 
Moses or of the patriarchs, but of 
Christ.' Thus it is distinguished, as 
regards Jirst its character, secondly 
its extent, and thirdly its author. 

7r€pieTpi]6r]Te'\ The moment at which 
this is conceived as taking place is 
defined by the other aorists, awra- 
(pevTes, avi/iryepdrjTe, etc., as the time 
of their baptism, when they 'put on 

dxfipoTToii]ra'\ i.e. 'immaterial,' 'spi- 
ritual,' as Mark xiv. 58, 2 Cor. v. i. 
So x^i-poTroirjTos, which is used in the 
N. T. of material temples and their 
fm-niture (Acts vii. 48, xvii. 24, Heb. 
ix. II, 24, comp. Mark I. c), and of the 
material circumcision (Ephes. ii. 11 
TTJs Xiyonivrjs 7repiT0fj.TJs iv aapKi x^ei- 
poTroiJ]rov). In the LXS ;(eipo7roi'72ra 
occurs exclusively as a rendering of 
idols (Dvvi^, e.g. Lev. xxvi. i, Is. ii. 
1 8, etc.), false gods (Q^"1?X Is. xxi. 9, 
where perhaps they read D'''?''7X), or 
images (D^JOn Lev. xxvi. 30), except in 
one passage. Is. xvi. 12, where it is 
applied to an idol's sanctuary. Owing 
to this association of the word the 
application which we find in the New 
Testament would sound much more 
depreciatory to Jewish ears than it 
does to our own ; e. g. iv ^f 'poTrou/rot? 
KaToiKe'i in St Stephen's speech, where 
the force is broken in the received 
text by the interpolation of vaoh. 

For illustrations of the typical sig- 
nificance of circumcision, as a symbol 
of purity, see the note on Phil. iii. 3. 

iv TTJ K.T.X.] The words are chosen to 
express the completeness of the spiri- 
tual change, (i) It is not an eicSvats 
nor an dTj-odvcris, but an aVe/cSvo-is. 



[II. 12 

7rOlt]T(i)} 6V Tt] dTTEKhvCreL TOV aCOjULUTO^ tP]^ G'apKOSy 

ev T^7 TrepiTOjuf] tov XpLcrToUi ^^ crvvracpevTe^ uvtm ev 

The word anUhvaLi is extremely rare, 
and no earlier instances of it are pro- 
duced; see the note on ver. 15 aVfAcSu- 
(Tcificvos. (2) It is not a single mem- 
ber but the whole body, which is thus 
cast aside ; see the next note. Thus 
the idea of completeness is brought 
out both iu the energy of the action 
and iu the extent of its operation, as 
in iii. 9 aJre/cSuo'a/ifi'oi tov TToKaiov 

TOV ardfjLaros K.T.X.] * the wlioU oody 
which consists of the fleshy i. e. ' the 
body with all its coiTupt and carnal 
affections'; as iii. 5 ve/cpwcrare ovv 
TO. fjLeXr). For illustrations of the 
expression see Rom. vi. 6 Iva Korap- 
yrj6j] TO (r(Ofia Trjs dfiapTias, vil. 24 tov 
(TcofiaTos tov davdrov tovtcv, Phil. iii. 
21 TO (Tto/jLa TTJs TaiTfivaa^ems rjpiav. 
Thus TO acofj-a TTJs aapKos here means 
'the fleshly body' and not 'the entire 
mass of the flesh'; but the contrast 
between the whole and the part still 
remains. In i. 22 the same expression 
TO <Ta>iia TTis aapKos OCCurs, but with a 
diflferent emphasis and meaning : see 
the note there. 

The words tcGi/ a/xaprtcoi/, inserted be- 
tween TOV crcopaTos and ttjs aapKos in 
the received text, are clearly a gloss, 
and must be omitted with the vast 
majority of ancient authorities. 

12. Baptism is the grave of the 
old man, and the birth of the new. 
As he sinks beneath the baptismal 
waters, the believer buries there all 
his corrupt afl'ections and past tins; 
as he emerges thence, he rises re- 
generate, quickened to new hopes 
and a new life. This it is, because 
it is not only the crowning act of his 
own faith but also the seal of God's 
adoption and the earnest of God's 
(Spirit. Thus baptism is an image of 
his participation both iu the death and 
in the resiu-rection of Christ. See 
Apost. Const, iii. 17 i? KardSucrtr to 

(TvvaTioBavilv, rj dvdbvcrii to crvvavacrnj- 
vai. For this twofold image, as it 
presents itself to St Paul, see es- 
pecially Rom. vi. 3 sq. 

iv Tu /3affrifr/ia)] ' in the act of 
bajjtisni* A distinction seems to be 
observed elsewhere in the Kew Tes- 
tament between ^dnria-pLa 'baptism' 
properly so called, and ^anriafios 
'lustration' or 'washing' of divers 
kinds, e.g. of vessels (Mark vii. 4, [8,] 
Heb. ix. 10). Even Heb. vi. 2 ^SaTr- 
Tiap.cov SiSaxrjs, which at first sight 
might seem to be an exception to this 
rule, is perhaps not really so (Bleek 
ad loc). Here however, where the 
various readings ^airridfia and ^an- 
TiapaTi appear in competition, the 
preference ought probably to be 
given to /3an-7-to-/z<a as being highly 
supported in itself and as the less 
usual word in this sense. There is 
no a 2^rioi'i reason why St Paul 
should not have used jBaTTTia-nos with 
this meaning, for it is so found iu Jo- 
sephus A?lt. Sviii. 5. 2 ^anTi(Tp.a> avv- 

Uvai (of John the Baptist). Doubtless 
the form ^dnna-fLa was more appro- 
priate to describe the one final and 
complete act of Clu'istian baptism, 
and it very soon obtained exclusive 
liossession of the ground in Greek ; 
but iu St Paul's age the other form 
/3a7rrt(r/i6f may not yet have been 
banished. In the Latin Version bap- 
tisma and bajitismus are used indis- 
criminately : and this is the case also 
with the Latin fathers. The substan- 
tive ' baptism ' occurs so rarely in any 
sense in St Paul (only Rom. vi. 4, Eph. 
iv. 5, besides this passage), or iudeed 
elsewhere iu the N. T. of Christian 
baptism (only in i Pet. iii. 21), that 
we have not sufiicient data for a 
sound induction. So far as the two 
words have any inherent ditference of 
meaning, /San-Ttcr^or denotes rather the 
act in process and ^dnTi(xp.a the result. 

II. 12] 



Tw (SaTTTLcrfJiM, ev 10 Kai G-uv?Ty6p6t]T6 ^la rt]^ Triareu)^ 
Tf]9 evepyeia^ tov Qeov rod iyeipavro's avrov ek \_twi/'J 

12. Tip ^aTrrla/j-aTL. 

iv w] i.e. ^aTVTKTjjia. Others would 
understand Xpiarw for the sake of 
the parallelism with ver. 11 iv «S 
Ka\...iv <S KaL But this parallelism is 
not suggested by the sense : while on 
the other hand there is obviously a 
very close connexion between a-vvra- 

(fievres and (TvvrjyepdrjTe aS the two 

complementary aspects of baptism; 
comp. Rom. vi. 4 sq. o-vveTCKprjuev 
avra dia tov ^aiTTiafiaTos iva wcnvep 
■qyepdr) Xpia-Tos-'-ovrais Koi rjiie' 
yap avfjLCpvroi yeyuvafiev tco o/xoiw/iari 
TOV OavaTov avTov, aWa Ka\ Trjs 
dvacTTaaecos eaofxeda, 2 Tim. 11. II 
et yap avvaTTedavofxev, Ka\ (rvv^t]- 
<Top.iv. In fact the idea of XpiciTcS 
must be reserved for awtjyepdrjTe 
where it is wanted, 't/e were raised 
together with Him' 

bib. TTjs TrlcTTecos /c.r.X.] 'through 
your faith in the operation^ evepyeias 
being the objective genitive. So St 
Chrysostom, iria-Teccs okov iaTiv' iivi.- 
arevcraTe on SvvaTai 6 0(os eyelpai, 
Ka\ ovT(os rjyepdrjTe. Only by a belief 
in the resurrection are the benefits of 
the resuiTOction obtained, because 
only so are its moral effects produced. 
Hence St Paul prays that he may 
' know the power of Christ's resurrec- 
tion' (Phil. iii. lo). Hence too he 
makes this the cardinal article in the 
Christian's creed, 'If thou...believest 
in thy heart that God raised II im 
from the dead, thou shalt be saved' 
(Rom. X. 9). For the influence of 
Christ's resurrection on the moral and 
spiritual being, see the note on Phil. 
I.e. Others take ttjs evepyeias as the 
subjective genitive, ' faith which comes 
from the operation etc.,' arguing from 
a mistaken interpretation of the par- 
allel passage Eplies. i. 19 (where Kara 
Trju ivipyeiav should be connected, not 
with Toxjs iTi(TT(vovTas, but with t'i to 

vTrepjBoKXov fieytGos K.T.X.). The former 
explanation however yields a better 
sense, and the genitive after ttlo-tis 
far more commonly describes the ob- 
ject than the source of the faith, e.g. 
Rom. iii. 22, 26, Gal. iii. 22, Ephes. iii. 
12, Phil. i. 27, iii. 9, 2 Thess. ii. 13. 

13. In the sentence which follows 
it seems necessary to assume a change 
of subject. There can be little doubt 
that o Qeos is the nominative to crw- 
e^u)OTToir](T(v : for (i) The parallel pas- 
sage Ephes. ii. 4, 5 directly suggests 
this. (2) This is uniformly St Paul's 
mode of speaking elsewhere. It is 
always God who iyelpti, crweyelpei, 
^cooTTOtet, crw^cooTTOtet, etc., with or ill 
or through Christ. (3) Though it might 
be possible to assign a-vv avVw to the 
subject of (Tvve(a>oTvoir](Tev (see the note 
on i. 20), yet a reference to some other 
person is more natural. These reasons 
seem to decide the subject of awe^m- 
oTTOLTjcrev. But at the same time it 
appears quite impossible to continue 
the same subject, o eeo?, to the end of 
the sentence. No gi'ammatical mean- 
ing can be assigned to dTreK8vadp.evos, 
by which it could be understood of 
God the Father. We must suppose 
therefore that a new subject, o Xpia- 
Tos, is introduced meanwhile, either 
Vi'ith rjpKev or with aTreK^vcrdpievos it- 
self ; and of the two the former seems 
the easier point of transition. For a 
similar instance of abrupt transition, 
which is the more natural owing to the 
intimate connexion of the work of the 
Son with the work of the Father, see 
e.g. i. 17 sq. 

Ka\ v/Lta?] i.e. 'you Gentiles.' This 
will appear from a study of the 
parallel passages iii. 7, 8, Ephes. i. 13, 
ii. I sq., II, 13, 17, 22, iii. 2, iv. 17; 
see the notes on Ephes. i. 13, and on 
TTj uKpolBva-Tia just below. 

1 84 


[H. 13 


veKpcov ^Kai vfjia^ veKpovi ovTa^ TOi? TrapctTTTcojuao'iv 
Kal tT] ciKpofSuo'Tia t)]<s crapKO'S vjutov, crvve^od07roui(Tev 

Tols TTapanTcSiMacTiv K.r.X.] ' hj/ reason 
of your transgressions etc' The ttq- 
paTTTconara are the actual definite trans- 
gressions, while the aKpofivarla tqs 
a-apKos is the impure carnal disposition 
which prompts to them. For the da- 
tive comp. Ephes. ii. i, 5, where the 
same expression occurs ; see Winer 
Gramm. § xxxi. p. 270. On the other 
hand in Rom. vi. 11 vsKpovs fiev rrj 
dfiapria, ^coirras 8e too Qeco, the dative 

has a wholly different meaning, as the 
context shows. The eV of the received 
text, though highly supportedjis doubt- 
less an interpolation for the sake of 
grammatical clearness. 

rrj oKpolBvaTLa K.r.X.] The external 
fact is here mentioned, not for its own 
sake but for its symbolical meaning. 
The outward uncircumcision of the 
Gentiles is a type of their unchastened 
carnal mind. In other words, though 
the literal meaning is not excluded, 
the spiritual reference is most promi- 
nent, as appears from ver. 11 ev rrj 
dTTfK^iKTft roil a-cojiaTos. Hence Theo- 
dore's comment, aKpo^variav (iKoXe- 
afv) TO Trepiicf'icrdai eri tt]v OvrjToTTjTa. 
At the same time the choice of the 
expression shows that the Colossian 
converts addressed by St Paul were 
mainly Gentiles. 

avve^coono'irjcrev] It has becn ques- 
tioned whether the hfe here spoken of 
should be understood in a spiritual 
sense of the regeneration of the moral 
being, or in a literal sense of the fu- 
ture life of immortahty regarded as 
conferred on the Christian potentially 
now, though only to be realised here- 
after. But is not such an issue alto- 
gether superfluous ? Is there any rea- 
son to think that St Paul would have 
separated these two ideas of life ? To 
him the future glorified life is only 
the continuation of the present moral 
and spiritual life. The two are the 
same in essence, however the accidents 

may difi"er. Moral and spiritual rege- 
neration is salvation, is life. 

v/x5y] The pronoun is repeated for 
the sake of emphasis. The omission 
in some good copies is doubly ex- 
plained ; (i) By the desire to simplify 
the grammar ; (2) By the wish to re- 
lieve the awkwardness of the close 
proximity between vfids and r^V'"- This 
latter consideration has led a few 
good authorities to substitute ^jxas for 
vfids, and others to substitute vfuv for 
ijfjilv. For instances of these emphatic 
repetitions in St Paul see the note on 

I. 20 fit' atjTov. 

(Tvp avTw] ' with Christ,' as in Ephes. 

II. 5 cvve^cooTTOLTjcrev ra XpKTTci. On 
the inadmissibility of the reading avrS 
see the note on fls avrov i. 20, 

Xfipicra'/iei/oy] ^ havinr/ forgiven,^ as 
in Luke vii. 42 sq., 2 Cor. ii. 7, 10, 
xii. 13, Ephes. iv. 32 ; see also the note 
on iii. 13 below. The idea of sin as a 
debt incurred to God (Matt. vi. 12 ra 
6(l>eCkr]p.aTa rjixav, COUip. Luke xi. 4) 
underlies this expression, as it does 
also the commoner term for pardon, 
dcpeais 'remission.' The image is 
carried out in the cancelled bond, 
ver. 14. 

jj/iti/] The person is changed ; * not 
to you Gentiles only, but to us all 
alike.' St Paul is eager to claim his 
share in the transgression, that he 
may claim it also in the forgiveness. 
For other examples of the change 
from the second to the first person, 
see i. 10—13, iii. 3, 4, Ephes. ii. 2, 3, 
13, 14, iv. 31, 32, V. 2 (the correct 
reading), i Thess. v. 5, where the mo- 
tive of the cliange is similar. See also 
Gal. iii. 25, 26, iv. 5, 6, where there is 
the converse transition. 

14. e^aXet'\|^as-] ^ having Cancelled.' 
The word (^aXei({)eiv, like diaypiipeiu, 
signifying ' to blot out, to erase,' is 

commonly opposed to iy-ypacpeiv ' to 

enter a name, etc' ; e. g. Arist. Pax 

II. 14] 


Vfid^ (Tvv avTw, ■^apLa'ajueyo^ iifjuv iravTa tu TrapaTrrco- 
ixara, ^^i^aXeiylras to kuO' t]fJLvov x^ipoypacpov to?s 

1181, Lysias c.Nicom.-p. 183, Plato 
Besp. vi. p. 501 B. More especially is 
it so used iu reference to au item in 
an account, e.g. Demosth. c. Aristorj. 
i. p. 791 (yyP'^'P'^^''''^'' "■"i'^^^ "' o0Xt- 
(TKavovres. . .e^aX^XiTVTai, to o(p\T]iJ.a. 

TO Kad' li^av K.T.X.'] ' the bond Stand- 
ing against us.' The word ^fpoypa- 
(f)ov, which means properly an auto- 
graph of any kind, is used almost ex- 
clusively for a note of hand, a bond or 
obligation, as having the ' sign-manual ' 
of the debtor or contractor : e.g. Tobit 
V. 3 (comp. ix. 5) ebdJKfv avTa to X^'PO" 
ypa(f)ov, Plut. Mor. p. 829 A Tutux^^po- 

ypdcfxov KoX <TV[il3o\aLcov. It is more 
common in Latin than in Greek, e.g. 
Cic. Fam. vii. 18 ' Misi cautionem chi- 
rograph! mei,' Juv. Sat. xvi. 41 * De- 
bitor aut sumptos pergit non reddere 
nummos, Vana supervacui dicens 
chirographa ligni' (comp. xiii. 137). 
Hence chirographum,chirogi'apharius, 
are frequent terms iu the Roman law- 
books; see Heumann-Hesse Hand- 
lexicon zu den Quellen des romischen 
Rechts s.v. p. 74. 

In the case before us the Jewish 
people might be said to have signed 
the contract when they bound them- 
selves by a curse to observe all the 
enactments of the law (Deut. xxvii. 
14 — 26; comp. Exod. xxiv. 3); and 
the primary reference would be to 
them. But rJ/xTv, ijn^v, seem to in- 
clude Gentiles as well as Jews, so that 
a wider reference must be given to 
the expression. The 86ynaTa there- 
fore, though referring primarily to the 
Mosaic ordinances, will include all 
forms of positive decrees in which 
moral or social principles are embo- 
died or religious duties defined ; and 
the 'bond' is the moral assent of the 
conscience, which (as it were) signs 
and seals the obligation. The Gen- 
tiles, though ' not having a law, are a 
law to themselves,' otTives evdeUvwrai 

To epyov Tov voy.ov y pairrov ev tuis 
Kapdiais avTwv, crvp.p.apTvpo\)crr]s 
avTwv Trjs (rvveiSijcTiois, Rom. ii. 14, 1 5. 
See the notes on Gal. ii. 19, iv. 11. 
Comp. Orig. Horn, in Gen. xiii. 4 (11. 
p. 96). 

Tols boyfiaa-iv] ' consisting in ordi- 
nances': comp. Ephes. ii. 15 t6v v6p.ov 
TU)V ivTokav iv boyfiacriv. The word 
86yp.a is here used in its proper sense 
of a ' decree,' ' ordinance,' correspond- 
ing to SoyixaTi^eade below, ver. 20. 
This is its only sense in the N. T. ; 
e.g. Luke ii. i. Acts xvii. 7, of the 
emperor's decrees ; Acts xvi. 4 of the 
Apostolic ordinances. Here it refers 
especially to the Mosaic law, as in 
Joseph. A7lt. XV. 5. 3 Ta KaXKicTTa tSv 
8oyp,aTa)V Koi Ta oaicoTaTa Tav iv toIs 

vofjLois, Philo Leg. All. i. 16 (i. p. 54) 

Siarijprjais tSv ayicov Boyfiarav, 3 Macc. 
i. 3 Tcov TvaTplcnv toypaTcov, Comp. 

Iren. Fragm. 38 (p. 855 Stieren) where, 
immediately after a reference to our 

text, rots TViV Yovha'iav doyfxaai TTpov- 
ipXeaBai is opposed to Trvevp-ariKccis 
XeiTovpyt'iv. In the parallel passage, 
Ephes. ii. 15, this is the exclusive 
reference; but here (for reasons ex- 
plained in the last note) it seems best 
to give the term a secondary and 
more extensive application. 

The dative is perhaps best explained 
as governed by the idea of yeypafx- 
p.ivov involved in x^'poypa<pov (comp. 

Plat. Ep. vii. p. 243 A Ta yeypafifiiva 

Tinrois) ; as m I Tim. ii. 6 t6 p-apTvpiov 
Kaipols Ibiois, where Kaipo'is depends 
on an implied pep.apTvprip.ivov. Other- 
wise it is taken as closely connected 
with Kad' Tjpav, ' the bond which was 
in force against us by reason of the 
ordinances': see Winer § xxxi. p. 273, 
A. Buttmann p. 80. Possibly an iv 
has dropped out of the text before 
roTf fioy/Liatrti', owing to the similar 
ending )(eiporpA({)ONeN (comp. Ephes. 
ii. 15); but, if so, the omission must 



[II. H 

doyfxao'LV, b r]v vTrevavTLOv t]ixLV' kul avTO t)pKev eK 

date from the earliest age, since no 
existing autliorities exhibit any traces 
of such a reading; see the note on 
ver. i8 a fopaKfv, and conip. PhiL ii. 
I et Tis airXayxva. 

A wildly different iutei-pretation 
however prevails universally among 
Greek commentators both here and 
in Ephes. ii. 15. They take roTy S07- 
liaa-iv, ii> hoyixaaiv, to mean the ' doc- 
trines or precepts of the Gospel/ and 
so to describe the instrument by 
which the abrogation of the law was 
effected. So Chrysostom, Scverianus, 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theo- 
doret, followed by the later commen- 
tators fficumenius and Theophylact. 
Strangely enough they do not allude 
to the correct interpretation; nor (with 
the exception of the passage ascribed 
to Irena;us which is quoted above) 
have I found any distinct traces of it 
in any Greek father. The grammati- 
cal difficulty would be taken to favour 
this interpretation, which moreover 
was characteristic of the age when 
the battle of creeds was fought. But 
it has been universally abandoned by 
modern interpreters, as plainly inap- 
propriate to the context and also as 
severing the substantive fioy^a here 
from the verb So-y/xartXen' in ver. 20. The 
Latin fathers, wlio had either decretis 
or sentcntiis in their version, were 
saved from this false interpretation; 
e.g. Hilar, de Trin. i. 12 (11. p. 10), 
ix. 10 (II. p. 265 sq.), Ambros. Apol. 
Dae. 13 (I. p. 698), de Fid. iii. 2 (11. 
p. 499), August, de Pccc. Mer. i. 47 
i^x. p. 26): though they very commonly 
took ToTs bby\ia<Tiv, eV fioy^iatrti/, tO 
refer to the decree of condemnation. 
Jerome however on Ephes. ii. 15 
(vii. p. 581) follows the Greeks. Tiie 
later Christian sense of Sjy/xa, mean- 
ing ' doctrine,' came from its secondary 
classical use, where it was applied to 
the authoritative and categorical 'sen- 
tences' of the philosophers : comp. 
Just. Mart. Ajpol. i. 7 (p. 56 d) o\ iv 

"EXAtjcti to. avTols dpecrra SoyfiaTicrairreg 
cK iravTos tco iv\ ovofiari (j)i\ocro(j)Las 
TrpoaayopevovTai, Kalirep rav toyfiaTav 
ivavTitav ovTcov, Cic. Accid. ii. 9 *de 
suis decretis quae philosophi vocant 
Soyixara,^ Senec. Ejnst. xcv. 10 'Nulla 
ars contemplativa sine decretis suis 
est, quae Graeci vocant dogmata^ nobis 
vel decreta licet adpellare vel scita 
vel placita^ See the indices to Plu- 
tarch, Epictetus, etc., for illustrations 
of the use of the terra. There is an 
approach towards the ecclesiastical 
meaning in Ignat. Magn. 13 ^e^aiat- 
6rjvai iv rols doyp-acriv rov Kvpiou Kn\ 
TtJou aTTocTToXccii', Bumab. § I Tpla ovv 
6oy/xara eaTiv Kvpiov (comp. § 9, lo). 

o ^v K.T.\.] ' tcldch teas dirccdy op- 
posed to us? The former expression, 
TO KaG" rjii(^v, referred to tl'.e validity 
of the bond; the present, o ^v v-mvav- 
TLov TJfilv, describes its actice hostility. 
It is quite a mistake to suppose that 
the first preposition in v-ivavTlo<: 
mitigates its force, as in virobrfkcciais, 

VTTokevKOS, vnop-alvoiiai, vjroarjfiaiveii', 
etc. K^either in classical writers nor 
in the lxx has the word any shade of 
tliis meaning. It is very commonly 
used, for instance, of things which are 
directly antagonistic and mutually 
exclusive : e. g. Aristot. de Gen. 
et Corr. i. 7 (p. 323) Arj^oKpiros... 

0»jcri...To a'VTo Koi ofioiov etVai to re 
TToiovv Koi TO T!aa\'iK.a(Ti. be ol 
TovTOV Tov Tporrov Xfyovres vnevavria 
(i.e. self-contradictory) (l>aaea-6ai Xe- 
yftu' a'lTiov Se Trjs ivavnoXoyias k.t.X., 

[Plato] Alcib. Sec. 138 c 2Q. To fial- 

vecrdai apa VTrevavriov aoi 80/cfi tco 
(ppovelv, A A. Udi'v fxev ovv...\2,<) B 2i2. 
Kai itrjv bvo ye virevavTia evi irpayfiari 
TTuis av etr] ; (}. e. how can one thing 
have two direct oppositcs /), where 
the whole argument dej^ends on this 
sense of vKevavTios. In compounds 
with vjTo the force of the preposition 
n'iil generally be detei-mined by the 
meaning of the other element in the 
co'.npound; and, as evavrioi- {evavn) 

11. 15] 


1 8/ 

Tov fxecrov, 'n-pO(Tn^(^o'ci^ avro rw arravpto- ^^ direA- 

implies locality, a local sense is commu- 
nicated to vTTo. Thus vTvevavTios may 
be compared with vTraWaa-aeiv, v- 
iravrav, vTravTia^eiv, vnorpe-^tiv (Xen. 
Cyrop. i. 2. 12 \rjaTas to 
hunt down'), vtreKavveiv (Xen. Anab. 
i. 8. 15 vTveXacras cos avvavTrjo-ai, 'riding 
up'), v4)iaTdvai (Polyb. i. 50 Gvirea-TT)- 
ae TTjv eavTov vavu avrlnpcopov Tois 
TToXe/it'ots,' he brought up' his own ship). 
"With this meaning, 'over against,' 
' close in upon,' the preposition does 
not weaken but enhance the force of 
ivavTLos, so that the compound will 
denote ' direct,' ' close,' or ' persistent 

K.a\ avTO ^pK.ev K.r.X.] 'and He, i. 6. 

Christ, hath taken it aicay.' There 
is a double change in this clause : (i) 

The participles {xapiCTap.(voi, i^akel- 

■\//'aj) are replaced by a finite verb. 
(^ The aorists {(Tvv€((xioTTo[r]a-€v, x°-' 
pia-afxevos, i^aXeL\}ras) are replaced by 
a perfect. The substitution of fjpev 
for ^pKev in some copies betrays a 
consciousness on the part of the scribes 
of the dislocation produced by the 
new tense. As a new subject, 6 
Xpiarros, must be introduced some- 
where _ (see the note on ver. 13), the 
severance thus created suggests this 
as the best point of transition. The 
perfect ^pKev, ' He hath removed it,' 
is suggested by the feeling of relief 
and thanksgiving, which rises up in 
the Apostle's mind at this point. For 
the strong expression a'lpetv e'/c [tov] 
jiiaov, ' to remove and put out of 
sight,' comp. Lxx Is. Ivii. 2, Epictet. 
iii. 3. 15, Plut. Ifor. p. 519 d; so 2 
Thess. ii. 7 €,< fxea-ov yev-qrai. 

7rpo<Tr]\cocras k.t.A.J ' Tlie abrogation 
was even more emphatic. Not only 
was the writing erased, but the do- 
cument itself was torn up and cast 
aside.' By Trpoa-rjXcoa-as is meant that 
the law of ordinances was nailed to 
the cross, rent with Christ's body, 
and destroyed vrith His death : see 
tho notes on Gal. vi. 14 fit' ov [tov 

aravpov] f[io\ Koaixos (the world, the 
si:)here of material ordinances) iarav- 
pcoTai Kayo) Koa-jj-a, where the idea is 
the same. It has been supposed that 
in some cities the abrogation of a 
decree was signified by running a 
nail through it and hanging it up in 
public. The image would thus gain 
force, but there is no distinct evi- 
dence of such a custom. 

1 5- dn-eJcSuo-ajaej/Of k.t. X.] Tllis 
word appears not to occur at all be- 
fore St Paul, and rarely if ever after 
his time, except in writers who may 
be supposed to have his language be- 
fore them; e.g. Hippol. Haer. i. 24 
aTreKSvaajievov to crcopa o TrfpiKflrat. 
In Joseph. Ant. vi. 14. 2 aVexSiij is 
only a variation for fiereK^vs which 
seems to be the correct reading. The 
word also appears in some texts of 
Babrius Fab. xviii. 3, but it is merely 
a conjectural emendation. Thus the 
occurrence of dTre<8v((Tdai, here and in 
iii. 9, and of direKbva-is above in ver. 1 1, 
is remarkable ; and the choice of an 
unusual, if not a wholly new, word 
must have been prompted by the de- 
sire to emphasize the of 
the action. The force of the double 
compound may be inferred from a pas- 
sage of Lysias, where the two words 
dnobviaOai and (Kljveadai occur toge- 
ther; c. Theomn. i. 10 (p. 117) 0a- 

(TK(x)V QoipLaTlOV CLTTohehvO'SaL 7] TOV XtTCO- 

via-Kov eic8ebv(T6aL. Here however the 
sense of dTreKSuo-a/zej'oy is diflicult. 
The meaning generally assigned to it, 
'having spoiled, stripped of their 
arms,' disregards the middle voice. 
St Jerome is chiefly responsible for 
this common error of interpretation : 
for in place of the Old Latin ' exuens 
se,' which was grammatically correct, 
he substituted 'exspolians' in his re- 
vised version. In his interpretation 
however he was anticipated by the 
commentator Hilary, who read ' exu- 
ens ' for ' exuens se ' in liis text. Dis- 
carding this sense, as inconsistent with 

1 88 


[II. 15 

a'djuevo^ tcIs ctp^as koi ra? e^ou(rLas iZeiyfiaTi- 

the voice, we have tlie clioice of two 

(i) Tlie common interpretation of 
the Latin fathers, 'jyuiting off the 
body,' thus separating dTreKSuo-a/if^o? 
from Toif apx^^i K.T.\. and understand- 
ing r^v a-apKu or to crcona with it; comp. 
2 Cor. V. 3 ivivaayievoi. So Novat. cle 

Trin. 16 'exutus camera'; Ambros. 
Expos. Luc. V. § 107 (i. p. 1381) 'ex- 
uens se carnem,' comp. de Fid. iii. 
2 (ir. p. 499); Hilar. rf(! Trin. i. 13 
(11. p. 10) 'exutus carnem' (comp. ix. 
10, p. 265), X. 48 (p. 355) 'spohans 
se carne' (comp. ix. 11, p. 266); Au- 
gustiu. Epist. 149 (11. p. 513) 'exuens 
se came,' etc. This appears to have 
been the sense adopted much earlier 
in a Docetic work quoted by Hippol. 

liaer. viii. lO-^vxh (Ktlvrj eV t« a-dixaTi 
Tpaipflaa, aTre/cSucra/xeVr; to aaifxa Kcii 
TvpovrfKuxjatra npos to ^CXov koi Bpiap.- 
^evcracra k.t.X. It is SO paraphrased 
likewise in the Peshito Syriac and the 
Gothic. The reading aTTtKdvaap.evos 
rf}v crapKa koi tus i^ovcrias (omitting 
Taj dpxas Kai), found in some an- 
cient authorities, must be a corrup- 
tion from an earlier text, which had 
inserted the gloss ttjv a-dpKa after 
aTTe/cSuo-a/xei/o?, while retaining ras 
dpxus Km, and which seems to have 
been in the hands of some of the La- 
tin fathers already quoted. This in- 
terpretation has been connected with 
a common metaphorical use of dno- 
bveaOai, signifying ' to strip ' and so 
' to prepare for a contest'; e. g. Plut. 
il/or. 811 E Trpov iracrav dnohvopevoi, 
TtjV iTo\LTiKr]v TTpa^iv, Dlod. Sic. ii. 29 
tVi (pi\o(rocf)lav d/roSwrey. The seri- 
ous objection to this rendering is, that 
it introduces an isolated metaphor 
which is not explained or suggested 
by anything in the context. 

(2) The common interpretation of 
the Greek fathers ; ' having struppcd 
off and put aicay the powers of evil,' 
making dn-eKSro-d/iei'os govern tus dp- 
X'u- k.t.X. So Chrysostora, Severianus, 

Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodo- 
ret. This also appears to have been 
the interpretation of Origen, in Matt. 
xii. § 25 (HI. p. 544), lb. § 40 (p. 560), 
in lonnn. vi. § 37 (iv. p. 155), ih. xx. 
§ -9 (P- 356), thougli his language is 
not explicit, and though his transla- 
tors, e. g. in Libr. les. Horn. vii. § 3 
(II. p. 413), make him say otherwise. 
The meaning then will be as follows. 
Christ took upon Himself our liuman 
nature with all its temptations (Heb. iv. 
1 5\ The powers of evil gathered about 
Ilira. Again and again they assailed 
Him; but each fresh assault ended 
in a new defeat. In the wilderness 
He was tempted by Satan ; but Satan 
retired for the time baffled and 
defeated (Luke iv. 13 dnearrj o'tt' 
avTov axpi Kaipov). Through the 
voice of His chief disciple the temp- 
tation was renewed, and He was 
entreated to decline His appointed 
sufferings and death. Satan was 
again driven off (Matt. xvi. 23 vnaye 
oTTicro) pov, 'SoTavd, (jKavSaXov d epov : 
comp. Matt. viii. 31). Then the last 
hour came. This was the great crisis 
of all, when ' the power of darkness' 
made itself felt (Luke xxii. 53 ?; e^ov- 
(Tia Tov aKOTovs ; see above i. 1 3), when 
the prince of the world asserted his 
tyranny (J oh. xii. 31 6 apx^v tov 
Kocrpov). The final act in the conflict 
began with the agony of Gethsemane; 
it ended with the cross of Calvary. 
The victory was complete. The enemy 
of man was defeated. The powers of 
evil, which had clung like a Nessus 
robe about His humanity, were torn 
off and cast aside for ever. And tho 
victory of mankind is involved in the 
victory of Christ. In His cross we 
too are divested of the poisonous 
clinging garments of temptation and 
sin and death ; to) diTo6icr6ai ttjv 
dmjTOTijTa, says Theodore, fjv inrep Tfjs 
Koivfjs d<f3€lXfV evepyfcrias, aTredva-aTO 
KuKeipav (1. e. T(cv dvTiKeipevcov 8vvd- 
peonv) Tfjv avBevTfiav yirep (KiXPl^'^o 

II. 15] 



aeu eV 7rappt]G'ia, Opiajm^evcras avTOv<s ev avTco. 

KaB" Tijiciv. For the image of the gar- 
ments comp. Is. Ixiv. 6, bat especially 
Zech. iii. i sq., 'And he showed me 
Joshua the high-priest standing be- 
fore the angel of the Lord and Satan 
standing at his right hand to resist 
him. And the Lord said unto Satan, 
The Lord rebuke thee, Satan... 
Now Joshua was clothed with filthy 
garments... And He answered and 
spake unto those that stood before 
Him, Sixying,Takc away tlie filthy gar- 
ments from him. And unto him He 
said, Behold, I have caused thine ini- 
quity to pass frotn tlicc^ In this 
prophetic i^assage the image is used 
of His type and namesake, the Jesus 
of the Restoration, not in his own 
person, but as the high-priest and re- 
presentative of a guilty but cleansed 
and forgiven people, with whom he is 
identified. For the metaphor of cnreK- 
Suo-n/Lievo? more especially, see Philo 
Quod det. pot. ins. 13 (i. p. 199) i^ava- 
(TTavTes 8e Kai dttpeicrafievoi ras ivT€)(- 
vovs avTcxiv TrepiTT^OKas fvfiapas f KSv- 
arofieda, where the image in the con- 
text is that of a wrestling bout. 

This interpretation is grammatical ; 
it accords with St Paul's teaching ; and 
it is commended by the parallel uses of 
the substantive in ver. 1 1 eV r^ dneK- 
tvaeiTov (TcofxaTOSTris crapK6y,and of the 
verb in iii. 9 aTre/cSucra/xej/ot tov naXaiov 
avdpoyrrov k.t.X. The aTTeKdvcris accom- 
plished in us when we are baptized into 
His death is a counterpart to the a/reV 
8vais which He accomplished by His 
death. With Him indeed it was only 
the temptation, with us it is the sin 
as well as temptation; but otherwise 
the parallel is complete. In both 
cases it is a divestiture of the powers 
of evil, a liberation from the dominion 
of the flesh. On the other hand the 
common explanation ' spoiling ' is not 
less a violation of St Paul's usage 
(iii. 9) than of grammatical rule. 

Tcis ap)^as K.T.X.] What powers are 
especially meant here will appear from 

Ephes. vi. 12 irpos ras dpxas, rrpos raj 
f^ovaias, TTpos roiis KocrfiOKparopas tov 
crxoTovs TOVTov, Trpos Ta TTvevfiaTiKO. ttjs 
Tvovrjpias K.T.X. See the note on i. 16. 
fdeiyixariaev] ' displayed' as a vic- 
tor displays his captives or trophies in 
a triumphal procession: Hor. Epist. 
i. 17. 33 ' captos ostendere civibus hos- 
tes.' The word is extremely rare; 

Matt. i. 19 W17 6eXcop avTTjv detyfiaTia-ai 
(where it ought probably to be read 
for the more common word jrapaSeiy- 
fiaTiaai), Act. Paul, et Petr. 33 eXeye 
Tipoi TOV Xaov iva fifj fiopov dno Trjs tov 
^LfjLcovos dnarr)! (fivycoaiv dXXa Kai 8eiy- 
fxaTiaovaiv avrov. Nowhere does the 
word convey the idea of ' making an 
example ' {TTapa8eiyp.aTicrai) but signi- 
fies simply ' to display, publish, pro- 
claim.' In the context of the last 
jiassage we have as the consequence, 

ware Trdvrns rovs evXajBels dvbpas /3Sf- 
XvTTCdOai ^ip.a<va tov fidyov kol dvorriov 
avrov KUTayyeXX etv, i.e. to proclaim 

his impieties. The substantive occurs 
on the Rosetta stone 1. 2>'^ (Boeckh 
G. I. 4697) i""^" awTfTeXeafxevcov Ta 
Trpos TOV bayfiaTicrp-ov did(})opa. 

iv 7Tappr]aia] ' boldly,' not ^publicly.' 
As nappTjaia is ' uni'esei'vedness, plain- 
ness of speech ' {irav-prjcria, its opposite 
being apprja-la ' silence '), so while 
applied still to language, it may bo 
opposed either (i) to 'fear,' as John 
vii. 13, Acts iv. 29, or (2) to 'am- 
biguity, reserve,' Joh. xi. 14, xvi. 
25, 29 ; but ' misgiving, apprehension ' 
in some form or other seems to be 
always the correlative idea. Hence, 
when it is transferred from words to 
actions, it appears always to retain 
the idea of ' confidence, boldness '; e.g. 
I Mace. iv. 18 X7j\//'ere rot a-KvXa neTa 
7rappT]a-iai, Test, xii Patr. Rub. 4 ovk. 
el^ov TrapprjCTiav arevicrai els Trpoaanrov 
'laKQJ/3, Jos. Ant. ix. 10. 4 vir' alcrxvvTjs 
re TOV (TV ii^(j3r] KOTOS deivov Kai tov fXTj- 
KeT avTa irapp-qaiav eivai. The idea of 
publicity may sometimes be connected 
with the word as a secondary notion, 



[II. i6 

*^M// ovu TL9 Kpivero} ev ^puxrei kcil ev Trocrei y] 

1 6. 7j ev Trbaei. 

e. g. in Job. vii. 4, \\'liere iv Trapprjo-ia 
elvai ' to assume a bold attitude' is 
opposed to ev KpvTTTa iroie'iv (comp. 
xviii. 20) ; but it does not displace the 
primary sense. 

6piap.^fva-as] 'leading them in tri- 
umph,' the same metaphor as in 2 Cor. 

ii. I4t(5 Tratrore dpian^evovn i]pas iv 
Tw Xpia-rio K.T.X , where it is wrongly 
translated in the A.Y. ' causeth us to 
triumph.' Here however it is the de- 
feated powers of evil, there the sub- 
jugated persons of men, who are led 
in public, chained to the triumphal 
car of Christ. This is the proper 
meaning and construction of dpiafi- 
^eveiv, as found elsewhere. This verb 
takes an accusative (i) of the person 
over whom the triumph is celebrated, 
e.g. Plat, Vit.Arat, 54 rovroi' At/ni'Xtor 
edpiaixIBevae, TJics. et Rom. Comp. 4 

^acri\f'is itlptapi3eva-e : (2) of the spoils 
exhibited in the triumph, e.g. Tatian 
C. GraeC. 26 irava-aaOe Xoyovs aXkoTpl- 
ovs dpiafilSevovTes Kai, wairep 6 KoKoio?, 
ovK Idiots eTriKoafxovjJLivoi iTTfpols: (3) 

more rarely of the substance of the 
triumph, e.g. Fit. Camill. 30 6 8e 
KapiXXos i6piap.!iev(re-. tov anoka>\vias 
cratrrjpa TrarptSos yevopevov, i. e. ' in tho 
character of his country's saviour.' 
The passive dpiap^eveadai is ' to be led 
in triumph,' ' to be triumphed over,' 
e.g. Fit. C. Marc. 35. So the Latius 
say ' triumphare aliquem' and 'trium- 

iv avTui] i. e. Tw (TTavpco : comp. 
Ephcs. ii. 16 anoKaTaWa^rj tovs apcpo- 
Tcpovf.. Sia TOV (TTavpov. The violence 
of the metaphor is its justification. 
The paradox of the cruciBxion is thus 
placed in the strongest light — triumph 
in helplessness and glory in shame. 
The convict's gibbet is the victor's 

16 — 19. 'Seeing then that the bond 
is cancelled, that the law of ordinances 
is repealed, beware of subjecting your- 
selves to its tyranny again. Sudor no 

man to call you to account in the 
matter of eating or drinking, or again 
of the observance of a festival or a 
new moon or a sabbath. These are 
only shadows thrown in advance, only 
types of things to come. The sub- 
stance, tho reality, in every case be- 
longs to the Gospel of Christ. The 
prize is now fairly within your reach. 
Do not suffer yourselves to be i-obbed 
of it by auy stratagem of the false 
teachers. Their religion is an offi- 
cious humility which displays itself in 
the worship of angels. They make a 
parade of their visions, but they are 
following an empty phantom. They 
profess humility, but they are puffed 
up with their vaunted wisdom, wliich 
is after all only the mind of the flesh. 
Meanwhile they have substituted in- 
ferior spiritual agencies for the One 
true Mediator, the Eternal Word. 
Clinging to these lower intelligences, 
they have lost their hold of the Head; 
they have severed their connexion 
with Him, on whom the whole body 
depends; from whom it derives its 
vitality, and to whom it owes its unity, 
being supplied with nourishment and 
knit together in one by means of the 
several joints and attachments, so that 
it gi'ows with a gro\rth which comes 
from God Himself.' 

1 6 sq. The two main tendencies of 
the Colossian heresy are discernible 
in this warning (vv. 16—19), ^s they 
were in the previous statement (vv. 9 
— 15). Here however the order is 
reversed. The practical error, an ex- 
cessive ritualism and ascetic rigour, 
is first dealt with (vv. 16, 17); the 
theological error, the interposition of 
angelic mediators, follows after (vv. 
18, 19). The first is the substitution 
of a shadow for the substance; the 
second is the preference of an inferior 
member to the head. The reversal of 
order is owing to the connexion of the 
paragraphs; the opening subject in 

II. 17] 



ev juepEL eoprrjs n veofJinvLas 


the second paragi-aph being, a conti- 
nuation of tho concluding subject in 
the first, by the figure called chiasm : 
couip. Gal. iv. 5. 

KjHviTfti] not 'condemn yoii,^ but 
^take you to task'; as e.g. Rom. xiv. 
3 sq. The judgment may or may not 
end in an acquittal ; but in any case 
it is wi'ong, since these matters ought 
not to be taken as the basis of a judg- 

iv /3pm'(Tei K.r.X.] 'in eating and 
in drinking ' ; Rom. xiv. 1 7 ou yap 
i(TTiv ri j3a(Ti\fLa rov Qeov /3pc5o-iy Kal 
TToms, dXKa hiKaioavvq k.t.\., Heb. IX. 
10 in\ ^pcufiaaiv Koi TTojxacnv Koi Sia- 
cjiopois ftajmapio'is, 8iKaiaip,aTa aapKos, 
comp. I Cor. viii. 8 ppapa oe y'lp-as ov 
napaaTrja-ei. r<a ©ew k.T.X. The first 
indication that the Mosaic distinctions 
of things clean and unclean should be 
abolished is given by our Lord Him- 
self: Mark vii. 14 sq. (the correct read- 
ing in ver. 19 being Kadapi^cov irdvTa to. 
^poofiaTa). They were afterwards form- 
ally annulled by the vision which ap- 
peared to St Feter: Acts x. 11 sq. 
The ordinances of the Mosaic law 
applied almost exclusively to meats. 
It contained no prohil)ition8 respect- 
ing drinks except in a very few cases; 
e.g. of the priests ministering in the 
tabernacle (Lev. x. 9), of liquids con- 
tained in unclean vessels etc. (Lev. 
xi. 34, 36), and of Nazarite vows 
(Num. vi. 3). These directions, taken 
in connexion with the rigid obser- 
vances which the later Jews had 
grafted on them (Matt, xxiii. 24), 
would be sufficient to explain the ex- 
pression, when applied to the Mosaic 
law by itself, as in Heb. 1. c. The rigour 
of the Colossian false teachers how- 
ever, like that of their Jewish proto- 
types the Essenes, doubtless went far 
beyond the injunctions of the law. It 
is probable that they forbad wine and 
animal food altogether: see the intro- 
duction pp. 86, 104 sq. For allusions 

i<XTLV ffKlb,. 

in St Paul to similar observances not 
required by the law, see Rom. xiv. 2 

o fie aadevav Xdxafa eadlei, Ver. 21 Ka- 
Xov TO prj (payf2v Kpea pride ttu'lv oivov 
/c.r.X., 1 Tim. iv. 2, 3 K(ii\vovTaiv...dTT6- 
X^crdai ^pcopdrMv a 6 Geos eKTiaev Ac.r.X., 
Tit. i. 14 A"? 'n'pocrexovTes...euTo\ais 
avdpcoTrav. . .iravra Kadapa to'ls Kadapots- 
The correct reading seems to be Kal 
iv TToa-fi, thus connecting together the 
words between which there is a natu- 
ral afiinity. Comp. Philo Vit. Mot/s. 
i- § 33 (ll' P- 1^0) ^ecmoivais p^aXeTrms 
avvf^evypevov (ipwaei koi nocrei, Ign. 
Trail. 2 ov •yap ^pmpdrav koX ttotwv 
(Icriv dioKOvoi. 

iv /xe'pft] ^in the matter of,' etc.; 
comp. 2 Cor. iii. 10, ix. 3 iv ra pipei 
Tovra. The expression seems origi- 
nally to mean 'in the division or cate- 
gory,' and in classical vrriters most 
commonly occurs in connexion with 
such words as ndevai, iroie'iadai, dpiO- 
peiv,&ic.: comp. Demosth. c. Aristocr. 
§ 148 0(Ta...aTpaTiaiTrjs u>v iv a<}iev8o- 
vi]Tov Kcil yp-iXov pep{i...i(TTpaT€vrai, i.e. 
* in the capacity of.' Hence it gets 
to signify more widely, as here, 'with 
respect to,' 'by reason of: comp. 
Philo Quod det. pot. ins. § 2 (i, p. 192) 
iv pepei Xoyov tov ttpokotttovtos Kara 
rov Trarepa KocrpovvTai, in FlacC, 20 
(11. p. 542) ocra iv p/pei x'^P'-'^''^^ '^"'' S<<>" 

peas eXajBov. But Jlllian V. H. viii. 3 
Kpivovres eKaaTov iv rat pepei (jiovov, 
quoted by the commentators, is a false 
parallel : for (povov is there governed 
by KpLvovrei and iv tw pepei means 'in 
his turn.' 

fopTijs K.r.X.] The same three words 
occur together, as an exhaustive enu- 
meration of the sacred times among 
the Jews, in i Chron. xxiii. 31, 2 Chron. 
ii. 4, xxxi. 3, Ezek. xiv. 17, Hos. ii. 11, 
Justin Dial. 8, p. 226; comp. is. i. 13, 

14. See also Gal. iv. 10 rjpipas napa- 
T-qpeldOe Kal pfjvas Kal Kaipovi Kal ivi- 
avTovs, where tlie first three words 
correspond to the three words used 



[II. iS 

Ttou fJieXKovTwv, to le (Twfia tov Xpicrrov. ' fxrjdek 

here, though the order is reversed. 
The topT^ here, like the Kuipoi there, 
refers chiefly to the annual festivals, 
the passover, pentecost, etc. The veo- 
fjLTjvla here describes more precisely 
the monthly festival, which is there 
designated more vaguely as n?ives. 
The (Tii^^ara here gives by name tlie 
weekly holy-day, ^vhich is there indi- 
cated more generally by T^fj-epai. 

veofjirjvlas] See Jsum. xxviii. II sq. 
The forms vfonrjvia and vovp.r]via seem 
to be used indiiferently in the common 
dialect, though the latter is more 
common. In the Attic vovurjvia alone 
was held to be correct; see Lobeck 
Phryn. p. 148. On the whole the 
preference should perhaps be given 
to veoiJL7]vias here, as supported by 
some authorities which are generally 
trustworthy in matters of orthogi-aphy, 
and as being the less usual form in 

(ra^i3(iTcov'] ' a sabbath-day,' not, as 
the A. v., 'sabbath days'; lor the co- 
ordinated words fopr^s, vfonr]vias, are 
in the singular. The word (Tnl3i3aTa 
is derived from the Aramaic (as dis- 
tinguished from the Hebrew) form 
aniV, and accordingly preserves the 
Aramaic termination in a. Hence it 
was naturally declined as a plural 
noun, aaii^ara, aajB^aToiv. The gene- 
ral use of o-a/3/3aro, when a single sab- 
bath-day was meant, will appear from 
such passages as Jos. Ant. i. i. l ayo- 
p.fv rfju T]pipav, Trpoarayopfvovres avrrjV 
o-djS^ara, ib. iii. lO. I ij3d6p.r]v i^fxepav 
fJTis (Tci^^aTa KaXelrai, Flut. Mor. 
169 'louSaZoi a-a^^arav ovtcov (i> 
dyi/n/n7rro(s KadeCofievoi, lb. 67 1 F oiiiai. di 
Kai TT]v Tcov tiafi^aTUiv (oprrjv fifj ttcivtu- 
TTucriv aTrpoaSiovvaov etVat, Hor. oat. 
i. 9. 69 ' hodie tricesima sabbata.' In 
the Kcw Testament (ra/3/3ara is only 
once used distinctly of more than a 
single day, and there the plurality of 
meaning is brought out by the at- 
tached numeral; Acts xvii. 2 tVl adji- 
Hura rpia. 

On the observance of days and sea- 
sous see again Gal. iv. 10, Rom. xiv. 
5, 6. A strong anti- Judaic view on the 
subject is expressed in the Ejnst. ad 
Diogn. § 4. Origen c. Ccls. viii. 21, 22, 
after referring to Thucyd. i. 70 /i»}rf 
(opTrjv aWo Ti i]ye'i(T6ai fj to ra hiovra 
Trpci^ai, says 6 reXeior, aft tu toIs Xo- 
yois cov Ka\ Tols fpyois ko.) to'is 8iavo^- 
jxaai TOV T^ (pvaeL Kvpiov Xoyou Qfov, 
dfi icTTiv avTov iv Tois rjfupan Kai aei 

ayet KvpLOKcis 17/^epar, and he then goes 
on to explain what is the napaa-KfvT], 
the Trdaxa, the TTfVTrjKoarri, of such a 
man. The observance of sacred times 
was an integral part of the old dispen- 
sation. Under the new they have 
ceased to have any value, except as a 
means to an end. The gi-eat principle 
that ' the sabbath was made for man 
and not man for the sabbath,' though 
underlying the Mosaic ordinances, 
was first distinctly pronounced by our 
Lord. The setting apart of special 
days for the service of God is a con- 
fession of our imperfect state, an 
avowal that we cannot or do not de- 
vote our whole time to Him. Sab- 
baths will then ultimately be sujjer- 
seded, when our life becomes one 
eternal sabbath. Meanwhile the Apo- 
stle's rebuke warns us against attri- 
buting to any holy days whatever a 
meaning and an importance which is 
aUen to the spirit of the New Covenant. 
Bengel on the test writes, ' Sabba- 
tuni non laudatur, non imperatur; 
dominica memoratur, non praecipitur. 
Qui profundius in mundi negotiis hae- 
rent, his utilis et necessarius est dies 
dcfinitus : qui semper sabbatizant, 
niajori libertate gaudent.' Yes: but 
these last are just they who will most 
scrupulously restrict their liberty, so 

as aKpocTKOTrot. yiueaOai. 

17. Two ideas are prominent in 
this image, (i) The contrast between 
tlie ordinances of the Law and the 
teaching of the Gospel, as the shadow 
and the substance respectively ; Philo 

II. I{ 



vjua^ KUTa^pa/SeveTco deXtov eV TUTreivocppocruvr] kul 

de Gonf. ling. 37 (l. p. 434) vojxia-avra^ 
TO. fX(V prjra rwv xPWy-^^ (TKids Tivas 
(ocravel a-afiarav eivai, Joseph. £, J. 
ii. 2. 5 CTKiav alrrjcroiievos ^aaiKeias 
i]s rjpTracrev eavTw tu acofia; COmp. 
Philo in Mace. 19 (11. p. 541) o-/cta npay- 
fidrcov ap' ^(rav, ov TTpdyp-ara. (2) The 
conception of the shadow as thx-own 
before the substance {rj 8e cricia. irporpe- 
xei Tov (7c6fxaT05, says a Greek commen- 
tator), so that the Law was a type and 
presageof the Gospel; Heb. x. i a-Kiav 
e}((ov 6 v6p.os Tan/ neWofTcov ayaoav 
(comp. ^-iii. 5). Thus it imphes both 
the unsubstantiality and the super- 
session of the Mosaic ritual. 

a] ^ which things,' whether dis- 
tinctions of meats or observances of 
times. If the other reading be ta- 
ken, it will refer to the preceding 
sentence generally, as if the antece- 
dent were ' the whole system of ordi- 

TO 8e a-afia /c.r.X.] As the shadow 
belonged to Moses, so ' the substance 
belongs to Christ'; i.e. the reality, 
the antitype, in each case is found in 
the Christian dispensation. Thus the 
passover typifies the atoning sacrifice; 
the unleavened bread, the purity and 
sincerity of the true believer; the 
Pentecostal feast, the ingathering of 
the first fruits ; the sabbath, the rest 
of God's people ; etc. 

18. The Christian's career is the 
contest of the stadium {8p6fj.os, Acts 
XX. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 7); Christ is the 
umpire, the dispenser of the rewards 
(2 Tim. iv. 8); life eternal is the bay 
wreath, the victor's prize {fipa^fiov, 
I Cor. ix. 24, Phil. iii. 14). The Co- 
lossians were in a fan* way to win this 
prize; they had entered the lists duly ; 
they were running bravely : but the 
false teachers, thrusting themselves in 
the way, attempted to trip them up 
or otherwise impede them in the race, 
and thus to rob them of their just 
reward. For the idea of (cara/Spa- 
/SeueVo) compare especially Gal. v. 7 


iTp€)(fTe fcaXcBS* tls v/xas fi/iKoyj/ev 


KaTa^pa^eveT<o] ^ rob of the prize, 
the ^pa^elov'; comp. Demosth, Mid. 
p. 544 (one of the documents) iin<jTa- 
fieda Srparwi/a viro MeiStou KUTa^pa- 
^evdevTa Koi napa iravTa to. b'lKaia 

ciTinaidevTa, which presents a close 
parallel to the use of naTa^pa^eveiv 
here. See also Bustath. on II. i. 403 sq. 
(p. 43) KOTa^pa^evet, avTov, cos (f)a(nv 

01 TToKaioi, ib. Opusc. 277, etc. The 
false teachers at Colossse are not re- 
garded as umpires nor as successful 
rivals, but simply as persons frustrat- 
ing tliose who otherwise would have 
won the prize. The word Kora^pa^eveiv 
is wide enough to include such. The 
two compounds KaTa^pa^eveif and na- 
pa^pa^eveiv (Plut. Ilor. p. 535 ol 
irapa^pa^evovTis iv toIs dywcrt) only 
diflfer in this respect, that deprivation is 
the prominent idea in the former word 
and trickery in the latter. Jerome, 
Epist. cxxi ad Algas. (i. p. 879), sets 
down this word, which he wrongly 
interprets 'bravium accipiat adversum 
vos,' as one of St Paul's Cilicisms. 
The passages quoted (whether the 
document in the Midias be authentic 
or not) are sufficient to show that 
this statement is groundless. 

^eXcov iv] ' taking delight in^ ' de- 
voting himself to,' The expression 
is common in the lxx, most frequently 
as a translation of "3 }*sn, i Sam. 
xviii. 22, 2 Sam. xv. 26, i Kings x. 9, 

2 Chron. ix. 8, Ps. cxi. i, cxlvi. 10, 
but in one passage of '"2 ^^^, 
I Chron. xxviii. 4. So too Test, xii 
Patr. Asher i iav ovv rj i\fvxh ^i^n 
iv KoKa. Comp, also i Mace. iv. 42 

OeXrjTas vofxov, and see ideXodp-qa-Kela 

below. Against this construction no 
valid objection has been urged. Other- 
wise BeXcov is taken absolutely, and 
various senses have been assigned to 
it, such as 'imperiously' or 'design- 
edly' or 'wilfully' or 'gladly, readily'; 
but these are either unsupported by 




[XL i8 

dprja-KEia tcov dyyeXMv, d eopuKev efj-^arevodv, eiK^ (pv- 

usage or inappropriate to the context. 
Leclerc {ad loc.) and Bentley {Crit. 
Sacr. p. 59) conjectured 6e\yav; Toup 
{Emend, in Sicid. 11. p. 63) more plau- 
sibly (\dcov ; but the passages quoted 
show that no correction is needed. 

TaTretvo4>po(Tvvr]] Humility is a vice 
with heathen moralists, but a virtue 
with Christian Apostles ; see the note 
on Phil. ii. 3. In this passage, which 
(with ver. 23) forms the sole exception 
to the general language of the Apo- 
stles, the divergence is rather appa- 
rent than real The disparagement is 
iu the accompaniments and not in the 
word itself. Humility, when it be- 
comes self-conscious, ceases to have 
any value; and self-consciousness at 
least, if not affectation, is imphed by 
Of'Kav iv. Moreover the character of 
the TaiTfivoippocrvvr] in this case is fur- 
ther defined as 6pr}<XKeia tup dyyiXuv, 
which was altogether a perversion of 
the truth. 

6pT](XKeia\ This word is closely con- 
nected with the preceding by the vin- 
culum of the same preposition. There 
was an officious parade of humility in 
selecting these lower beings as inter- 
cessors, rather than appealing di- 
rectly to the throne of grace. The 
word refers properly to the external 
rites of religion, and so gets to sig- 
nify an over-scrupulous devotion to 
external forms; as iu Philo Quod det. 
pot. ins. 7 (l. p. 195) dprjaxelav avrl 
oaioTTjTos fjyoxj^ivos, Plut. Vtt. Alex. 
2 boKii Kai TO 6pT](TKfV€iv ovofxa Tals 
KiiraKopois yevio-dai koI nepiepyots 
iepovpyiais : comp. Acts xxvi. 5, and 
see the well-known remarks of Cole- 
ridge on James i. 26, 27, in Aids to 
Refiectiou p. 14. In the Lxx 6pr]- 
a-Keveiv, dprjaKeia, together occur four 
times (Wisd. xi. 16, xiv. 16, 18, 27), 
and in all these examples the refer- 
ence is to idolatrous or false worship. 
Indeed generally the usage of the 
word exhibits a tendency to a bad 

TWf dyyfKav] For the angelology 
and the angelolatry of these Colossian 
false teachers, more especially in its 
connexion with Essene teaching, see 
the introduction, pp. 89 sq., loi sq., 
1 10, 1 1 5 sq. For the prominence which 
was given to angelology in the specu- 
lations of the Jews generally, see the 
Preaching of Peter quoted in Clem. 

Alex. Strom, vi. 5 (p. 760) /XTjSe Kara 
'lovSai'ovs (re^eade, koi yap tKelvoi... 
ovK iiricTTavTai Xarpevovres ayye\ois 
Kal dpxayyeXoii, Celsus in Orig. c. Cels. 
v. 6 (l. p. S^o) nparov ovv tUv 'lovBaitov 
davp.a(eiv a^iov, el tov p.ev ovpavov Koi 
Tovs if TwSe dyyekovs cre^ovai k.t.X., 
comp. ib. i. 26 (p. 344). From Jews 
it naturally spread to Judaizing 
Christians; e.g. Clem. Horn. iii. 36 

dyyeKav ovopara yvcopi^eiv, viii. 12 sq., 
'Test, xii Pair. Levi 3 (quoted above 
on i. 16). The interest however ex- 
tended to more orthodox circles, as 
appears from the passage in Ignat. 

Trail. 5 P^'fj ov dvvapai Ta fTTovpdvia 
ypaylrai ; voelv to inovpavia 
Koi Tac TOTToOecrias ras dyyeXiKas koi 
ras avcrrdafii rds dp^otrriKUS jc.t.X. (see 
the note there). Of angelology among 
Gnostic sects see Iren. ii. 30. 6, ii. 32. 
5, Orig. c. Cels. vi. 30 sq. (i, p. 653), 
Clem. Alex. Exc. Theod. p. 970 sq., 
Pistis Sophia pp. 2, 19, 23, etc. 

a fopaKev k.t.X.] liiQYuWj invading 
what he lias seen,' which is generally 
explained to mean 'parading' or 'por- 
ing over his visions.' For this sense of 
ep^areveiv, which takes either a geni- 
tive or a dative or an accusative, comp. 
Philo de Plant. Noe ii. 19 (i. p. 341) 

o'l Trpocrcorepci) ^uipovvTes tS>v fma-rr]- 
pwv KOI im, ifKeov ep^arevovres avTois, 
2 Mace. ii. 30 ^o pev €p.^aT(vovT(s Ka\ 
T7ep\ ndvTUiv iroielcrOaL \6yov Koi noKv- 
Tvpaypoveiv iv toIs Kara p-epos. At a 
later date this sense becomes com- 
mon, e.g. Nemesius de Nat. Horn. 
p. 64 (ed. Matthsei) ovpavov fp,^aTfvfi 
rfi Sfcopia. In Xen. Symp. iv. 27 tv 

Tw avTU) /3i/3Xia) ap(p()Tfpoi fp^arevfTt 

n 19] 



ariovfxevo^ vtto tou voo^ Tt]^ 

Ti, the reading may be doubtful. But 
though a eopuKev singly might mean 
' his visions,' and fn^arevcou ' busying 
himself with,' the combination ' inva- 
ding what he has seen,' thus inter- 
preted, is so harsh and incongruous 
as to be hardly possible; and there 
was perhaps some corruption in the 
text prior to all existing authorities 
(see the note on Phil. ii. i for a par- 
allel case). Did the Apostle write 
icopa (or almpa) Kevfjji^aTevav ? In this 

case the existing text AeoopAKeNCM 
BATeY<JON might be explained partly 
by an attempt to correct the form 
edpa into alcopa or conversely, and 
partly by the perplexity of transcribers 
when confronted with such unusual 
words. This reading had suggested 
itself to me independently without 
the knowledge that, so far as regards 
the latter word, it had been antici- 
pated by others in the conjecture a 
ecipa (or a icopanev) Kevep^arevcov. The 
woi'd Kevep^arelp 'to walk on empti- 
ness,' * to tread the air ' and so meta- 
phorically (like depoliarelv, aldepo^a- 
Telv, aWepep^are'ip, etc.) ' to indulge in 
vain speculations,' is not an uncommon 
word. For its metaphorical sense espe- 
cially see Plut. 3Ior. p. 3 36 P ovras epep- 
^ero Kevepliarovv Kal <T(j)a\X6pevop vtt 
dvapx^ias to peyedos avrrjs, Basil. Op. 
I. p. 135 '''ov vovv...pvpia ir\avTjdevTa 
Koi TToXXa Kevepl^aTijcravTa k.t.X., ib. I. 
p. 59^ ^'^^ ^^ M K-fvep^aTeirai 6 vovs, 
Synes. de Insomn. p. 156 ovre yap xe- 
vep^arovvTas roiis \6yovs e^rjveyKav. 
Though the precise form KepeplBareveiv 
does not occur, yet it is unobjection- 
able in itself. For the other word 
which I have ventured to suggest, 
ecopa or alcopa, see Philo de Somn. ii. 6 
(l. p. 665) VTroTv(f)ov pevos vtt al- 
(opas cfipepmp Kal kspov (ftva-qparos, ib. 
§ 9 (P- 667) rrjp iii alto pas (popovpe- 

vr]p Kepffv bo^ap, Qiiod Deus immut. 

§ 36 (l. p. 298) aairep eV aldipas tl- 
pos ^//•euSoCs Kal d^e^aiov bo^rjs (fiopel- 
orQat, Kara Kevov ^aivovra. The 


Kai ou 

(TapKO^ avTOVy 

first and last passages more especially 
present striking parallels, and show 
how germane to St Paul's subject 
these ideas of ' suspension or bar 
lancing in the air' {impa or aldpa) 
and 'treading the void'(«ei'eyn/3arev6H') 
would be, as expressing at once the 
spiritual pride and the emptiness of 
these speculative mystics ; see also de 

Somn. ii. 2 (p. 661) ep(j)aLveTai Kal to 
TTjs Keprjs b6$rjs, e(j)' tjp, ws e'<^' dppa, 
bia TO Kov(f)op dvajBaipei, (pvaos- 
pepos Kal peTecopop ^aprjKois eavTOP. 

The substantive, sdpa or aldpa, is used 
sometimes of the instrument for sus- 
pending, sometimes of the position of 
suspension. In this last sense it de- 
scribes the poising of a bird, the float- 
ing of a boat on the waters, the ba- 
lancing on a rope, and the like. Hence 
its expressiveness when used as a me- 

In the received text a negative is 
inserted, a pf) empaKep ep^oTtvoop. 
This gives a very adequate sense ' in- 
truding into those tJiings which he 
has not seen^; ov yup tlbep dyyeXovs, 
says Chrysostom, Kal ovtw btaKeiTai as 
Ibarv : comp. Ezek. xiii. 3 oval to7s irpo- 
(j)r]Tevovcnp diro Kapblas avTav Kal to 
Ka66\ov pf) ^Xenova-iP. But, though 

the difficulty is thus overcome, this 
cannot be regarded as the original 
reading of the text, the authorities 
showing that the negative was an after 
insertion. See the detached note on 
various readings. 

For the form eopaKsp, which is bet- 
ter supported here than idpaKev, see 
the note on ii. i. 

flKji (pva-iovpepos] ' vainly puffed up.' 
Their profession of humility was a 
cloke for excessive pride : for, as 
St Paul says elsewhere (i Cor. viii. 
i), >y yvcoa-Ls (j)vaio'l. It may be ques- 
tioned whether ehfj should be con- 
nected with the preceding or the fol- 
lowing words. Its usual position in 
St Paul, before the words which it 
qualifies (Rom. xiii. 4, i Cor. xv. 2, 



[11. 19 

KpaTCdV Trjp K6(J)a\t]V, 6^ ou irav to a'cofjia hia Tiav dfpwv 

Gal. iv. II; there is an exceptional 
reason for the exceptional position in 
Gal. iii. 4), points to the latter con- 

Tov voos K.r.X.] * the mind of his 
Jlesh,' i.e. unenlightened by the Spirit ; 
comp. Rom. viii. 7 to ^povr^ia Trjs 
aapKos. It would seem that the 
Apostle is here taking up some watch- 
word of the false teachers. They 
doubtless boasted that they were di- 
rected vno TOV voos. Yes, he answers, 
but it is o vovs TTJs crapKQs vnuv. Com- 
pare Rev. ii. 24, where the favourite 
Gnostic boast yivaxTKeLV Ta ^aOea is 

characterized by the addition of tov 
2aTava (see Galcitians 'p. 298, note 3). 
Comp. August. Con/, x. 67 ' Quem 
iuvenirem qui me reconciliaret tibi? 
Ambiendum niihi fuit ad angelos? 
Qua prece ? quibus sacramentis ? 
Multi conantes ad te redire, neque 
per se ipsos valentes, sicut audio, ten- 
taverunt haec et iuciderimt in deside- 
rium curiosarum visionum et digni 
habiti sunt illusionibus. Elati enim 
tc quaerebant doctrinae fastu, etc' 

19. ov KpaTav] ' not holding fast.' 
This is the most common construction 
and meaning of KpaTt'iv in the New 
Testament; e.g. Mark vii. 8 dcf^evres 
TTjv ivToXfjv Toi) Qeoi) KparelTe ttjv 
Tvapaboaiv t<ov dvdpocnai' ; Comp. Caut. 
Ul. 4 fvpof ov Tj-yawrjafv rj yj/v)C^ Mod, 
enpaTTjaa avTov Koi ovk d(f)fjKa avTov. 

Trjv K«pu\i]v] ' the Head ' regarded 
as a title, so that a person is at once 
suggested, and the relative which 
follows is masculine, e^ ov; comp. the 
parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 16 os eanv 
1] Ke(j)dkT], XpiaTos e^ ov ttclv to (rdfia 
K T.X. The supplication and worship 
of angels is a substitution of inferior 
members fbr the Head, which is the 
only source of spiritual life and energy. 
See the introduction pp. 34, 76, 99 
sq., Ii3sq.^ 

dia Ttov d^fGi/ /C.T.X.] ' through the 
junctures and ligaments.^ Galen, when 
describing the structure of the human 

frame, more than once specifies the 
elements of union as twofold : the 
body owes its compactness partly to 
the articidation, partly to the attach- 
ment; e.g. Op. II. p. 734 (ed. Kiihn) 
fcrrt be o Tponos Trjs crvvdeaecos avriov 
diTTos KOTO yevns, 6 p.ev eTepos kutu 
apQpov, 6 Se erepos Kara crvp.(}>v(riv. 
Similai'ly, though with a more general 
reference, Aristotle speaks of two 
kinds of union, which he describes 
as d0?7 ' contact ' and (rvfjL(f)v(ns 
'cohesion' respectively; Metaph.iv. 4 

(p. IOI4) 8ia(f)epei. 8e (Tvp(f)vais d(f>ij s' 
evda [lev yap ovBiv napa ttjv dcf>fjv erepov 
avayKTj eivai, ev 8e toIs crvfj.Tre(f)vK6atv 
ecTTt Ti ev TO avTo ev dij.<f)olv o Trotet 
avrl TOV ciTTTecrdaL koi 
ehai ev k.t.X., P/iys. Ausc. iv. 6 (p. 
213) TovTois d(f)i'] eariv' crviKpvtTis fie, 
oTav ap.(f)(o evepye'ia ev yevavTai (comp. 

ib. V. 3, p. 227), Metaph. x. 3 (p. 107 1) 
ocra e<rTLV d(f)fj koi fir] <TVfi(^v<jei. The 
relation of contiguous surfaces and 
the connexion of different parts to- 
gether effect structural imity. This 
same distinction appears in the A- 
postle's language here. Contact and 
attachment are the primary ideas in 
d0at and (Tvvbe(Tp.oi. respectively. 

Of the function of d0»;, ' contact,' in 
physiology {irepX d(f)fjs tijs ev toIs (f)v(ri- 
Kols) Aristotle speaks at some length 
in one passage, de Gen. et Corr. i. 6 
(p. 322 sq.). It may be mentioned, 
as illustrating St Paul's image, that 
Aristotle in this passage lays great 
stress on the mutual sympathy and 
influence of the jjarts in contact, de- 
scribing them as iraBriTiKa Koi TTOiTjTiKa 
and as KivrjTiKo. koi KivrjTa VTT dXX»jXa)i/. 

Elsewhere, like St Paul here, he uses 
the plural ai dcjial ; de Caelo i. 1 1 (p. 

280) TO avev (jidopds OTe fiev ov oTe 8e 
fXT] ov, olov Tas d(f)ds, oti dvev tov <l)6ei- 
pecrdai rrpoTepov ovaai vcrTepov ovk elaiv, 
de Gen. et Corr. i. 8 (p. 326) ovre yap 

(card Tas d<pa.s evbe\eTai duevai 81a. 
Tciv 8ia(j)avcov ovTe 8id Tav ir6pa>v,ib. 
§9 (P- Z~l) f' y^P 8iaKplvea6ai bvvaTm 

II. 19] 



Kai (TUi/^€crfj.coi/ iTTixopnyovjuei/oi/ Kal (Tviyf3if3a^6iuevov 

Kara Tas a(pas, cocnrep cpacri rivts, kuv 
firjTTOi f] Sirjprjfievov, earai dLrjprjfievov' 
Swarbv yap Siaipedijvai : comp. [Plat.] 
Axioch. p. 365 A avveikeyfiepov ras 
d(f)a.s Koi. rw a(op.aTi pco/xaXeov. It is 

quite clear from these passages of 
Aristotle, more especially from the 
distinction of dcpal and -rropoi, that al 
d(f)al are the joinings, the junctures. 
When applied to the human body 
they would be 'joints,' provided that 
we use the word accurately of the re- 
lations between contiguous limbs, and 
not loosely (as it is often used) of the 
parts of the limbs themselves in the 
neighbourhood of the contact. Hip- 
pocrates indeed used a(l)ai as a physio- 
logical term in a different sense, em- 
ploying it as a synonyme for dpfxara 
i. e. the fasciculi of muscles (see Galen 
Op. XIX. p. 87), but this use was quite 
exceptional and can have no place 
here. Thus al dc^al will be almost a 
synonyme for to. up6pa, diflFering how- 
ever (i) as being more wide and com- 
prehensive, and (2) as not emphasizing 
so strongly the adaptation of the 
contiguous parts. 

The considerations just urged seem 
decisive as to the meaning of the 
word. Some eminent modern critics 
however explain al d(pai to be 'the 
senses,' following Theodoret on Ephes. 
iv. 16 d(})fjv 8e TTiv ai(rdri(Tiv npoariyo- 
pevaev, eTretSi) Kal avrrj p'la tSv irivTf 
alaBjjaeav, koi otto tov [xepovs to ttov 
uivop-aae. St Chrysostom had led the 
way to this interpretation, though his 
language is less explicit than Theo- 
doret's. To such a meaning how- 
ever there are fatal objections, (i) 
This sense of d^^ is wholly unsup- 
ported. It is true that touch lies at 
the root of all sensations, and that 
this fact was recognised by ancient 
physiologists: e.g. Aristot. de Anim. 
i- 13 (P- 435) '^^^^ f**" yap d^^f ov^i- 
(I'lav €v8e)(€Tai aXkriv aicrdricnv i'x^iP. But 

here the connexion ends ; and unless 
more cogent examples not hitherto ad- 

ducedare forthcoming, we are justified 
in saying that al d<f)ai co'.ild no more 
be used for at aladrja-eis, than in 
English ' the touches ' could be taken 
as a synonyme for 'the senses.' (2) The 
image would be seriously marred by 
such a meaning. The d^al and avv- 
8eap.oi would no longer be an ex- 
haustive description of the elements 
of union in the anatomical structure ; 
the conjunction of things so incon- 
gruous under the vinculum of the 
same article and preposition, Sid twk 
a0a)j/ Kal avv8ea-p.a>v, would be un- 
natural ; and the intrusion of the 
'senses' would be out of place, where 
the result specified is the supply of 
nourishment (iinxopriyoiiievov) and the 
compacting of the parts (o-ui//3£/3a^d- 
p.evov). (3) All the oldest versions, the 
Latin, the Syriac, and the Memphitic, 
explain it otherwise, so as to refer in 
some way to the connexion of the 
parts of the body; e.g. in the Old 
Latin it is rendered nexus here and 
junctura in Ephes. iv. 16. 

o-wSecr/xcai'] '' bands," ligaments.^ The 
Greek (n;j'8eo-/Ltos', like the English ' liga- 
ment,' hasageneral andaspecial sense. 
Initsgeneralandcomprehensive mean- 
ing it denotes any of the connecting 
bands which strap the body together, 
such as muscles or tendons or liga- 
ments properly so called; in its special 
and restricted use it is a ' ligament ' 
in the technical sense; comp. Galen 
Op. IV. p. 369 (Tvvbea-jxos yap icrriv, 6 
yovv Idlcos, ov Koivas 6voiia^6p.evos, (tco- 
p,a vevpwbfs i^ oarov [xev oppatjxevov 
TraiTws 8taTre<pvKos Se rj els octtovv tj els 
p,vv. Of the a-vv8e(rpoi or ligaments 
properly so called Galen describes at 
length the several functions and uses, 
more especially as binding and holding 
together the hiapdpdcreis; Op. i. 236, 
11. 268, 739, III. 149, IV. 2, etc., comp. 
Tim. Locr. de An. Mund. p. 557 aw- 
8ecrp.ot.s TTOTTav Kivacnv tols vevpois 
a-vvd^e to. apdpa {Opusc. Mythol. etc. 
ed. Gale). In our text indeed a-vv- 



[II. 20 

aii^ei Ttiv av^rjo'iu tov Qeov. '°6i dwedaveTe aw XpiaTw 

df(TnoL must be taken in its compre- 
heusive seuse; but the relation of the 
d(t>ai to the crvvSea^oi in St Paul still 
remains the same as that of the 8iap- 
dpcocreis to the avvSeafioi in Galen. 

fTnxoprjyovfjLevov k.t.\.] The two func- 
tions performed by the dcpai and avv- 
tea-fioi are first the supply of nutri- 
ment etc. {fmxoprjyovfievov), and se- 
condly the compacting of the fi-ame 
{<Tvv^i^aC6p.evov). In other words 
they are the communication of Ufe 
and energy, and the preservation of 
unity and order. The source of all (e^ 
ov) is Christ Himself the Head ; but 
the channels of communication (Sta 
Tciv K.T.X.) are the different members 
of His body, in their relation one to 
another. For encxoprjyovpfvov ' bounti- 
fully furnished' see the note on Gal. 
iii. 5. Somewhat similarly Aristotle 
speaks of a^a KoXXicrra Tre(f)vK6s koI 
K.exopr]yT]pfvov, Pol. iv. I (p. 1 288). 

For examples of x°P^y'>-^ appUed to 
functions of the bodily organs, see 

Galen. Op. ni. p. 617 iv rais elaivvoais 
Xoprjyia ^Irvxpas ttoiottjtos, Alex. Probl. 
i. 81 TO n\fi(JTOv Ttjs rpoc^fjs i^vhapov- 
fxevov ;(op»j'yetrai Trpos yeveaiv roii itd- 
60VS. For a~vv^i^a^6p.€pov, 'joined to- 
gether, compacted,' see the note on 
ii. 2. In the parallel passage, Ephes. 
iv. 16, this part of the image is more 
distinctly emphasized, avvapp.d\oyovp.f- 
vov Kai (TvvjiL^a^ofjLevov. The difference 
corresponds to the different aims of 
the two epistles. In the Colossian 
letter the vital connexion with the 
Head is the main theme ; in the 
Ephesian, the unity in diversity among 
the members. 

uu^et T-^v av^Tjo-iv K.r.\.^ By the two- 
fold means of contact and attach- 
ment nutriment has been diffused and 
structural unity has been attained, 
but these are not the ultimate result ; 
they are only intermediate processes ; 
the end is growth. Comp. Arist. 
Metaph. iv.4(p.ioi4)ai!i^j;(ri;' ^X^'- ^' 
fTfpov r<5 aiTTeadat Koi (rvfi7rf(j)vKe- 

vai...dia({)epei Se crvficpvais d^^y, where 
growth is attributed to the same two 
physiological conditions as here. 

TOV Qeoii] i.e. ' which partakes of 
God, which belongs to God, which 
has its abode in God.' Thus the finite 
is truly united with the Infinite; the 
end which the false teachers strove 
in vain to compass is attained; the 
Gospel vindicates itself as the true 
theanthropism, after which the human 
heart is yearning and the human in- 
tellect is feeling. See above, p. 115 
sq. With this conclusion of the sen- 
tence contrast the parallel passage 
Ephes. iv. 16 t^v av^ijaiv TOV (Tcop.aTos 
TTOLetTai els olKoBofiTjv eavTov iv 
ayaTTji, where again the diflerent 
endings are determined by the dif- 
ferent motives of the two epistles. 

The discoveries of modern physi- 
olog}' have invested the Apostle's 
language with far greater distinctness 
and force than it can have worn to 
his own contemporaries. Any expo- 
sition of the nervous system more 
especially reads like a commentary on 
his image of the relations between the 
body and the head. At every turn 
we meet with some fresh illustration 
which kindles it with a flood of light. 
The volition communicated from the 
brain to the Umbs, the sensations of 
the extremities telegraphed back to 
the brain, the absolute mutual sym- 
pathy between the head and the 
members, the instantaneous paralysis 
ensuing on the interruption of con- 
tinuity, all these add to the com- 
pleteness and life of the image. But 
the following passages will show how 
even ancient scientific speculation was 
feeling after those physiological truths 
which the image involves; Hippocr. 
de Morh- Sacr. p. 309 (ed. Foese) xara 

TOVTa vop.i^Q) TOV iyKf(f)aXov dvva^iv 
TrXeicrTTjv e^^etv iv Ta dvdpcoTrco...ol 8e 
6cj)6dkfio\ Koi TCI ovuTa Kai r; yXacrcra 
Koi al x^^P^^ '"^' °' TToSes, oia av o eyKe- 
cf>aXos yivcicTKr), Toiaiira virqpfTov(n... 

II. 20] 



airo Ttov OTTOi^eLCdv tou Korrjuov, tl ws nwi/re? ev kog-jum 

es 8e rfjv crvvecnv c iyKic^aXos icrriv 6 
di.ayy€KKa>v...hi6Ti, (jirjiA rof eyKe(f)aXov 
elvaL TOP epfiTjvfvovra ttjv (rvveaiv, al 8e 
(Ppeves aXXti)? ovofjLa e)(ov(Ti Tjj tvxJ] 
KeKTr]iJifVov...Xeyov(Ti 8e rives a)j (ppove- 
ofiev TT) Kaphirj km to avtcSfievov tovto 

fCTTl Kal TO (})pOVTl^OV' TO Se 01;;^ OVT(x}S 

€-)(^ei....Tfjs...(^povricnos ovSfrepm fieTea- 
Tiv dXXA TravTcov rovreaiv o eyK.e(j)aKos 
aiTios i<TTiv...Trpa>Tos aladdverai 6 iy- 
KecjjaXos tcov iv rw acofiaTi iveovTcoi/ 
(where the theory is mixed up with 
some cm^ious physiological specula- 
tions), Galen. Op. i. 235 avTos 8e 6 
eyKe(f)aXos otl fiev opX^ ■'""'^ vevpois 
awacn rfjs Swaneds ea-Tiv, evapycos 
efia6oiJ.ev...Tr6Tepov Be as avros rols 
Vfvpois, ovTO) fKeiva ttoXiv eT(p6i> ti 
fiopiov eTrnrefinei, jj wqyq ris avrcov 
icrriv, er adrjXov, ib. IV. p. 1 1 apxrj p.fv 
yap avrav (i.e. rdv vevpcov) 6 iyKe(paX6s 
icrri, Koi to. Trddr] els avTov (pepei, oiov 
eis apovpdv riva rfjs XoyLcrTiKrjs '^V)(rjs' 
eK(f)v(Tis d' evrev6ev, oiov nptpvov rivos 
fls 8ev8pov dv^KovTos p^eya, 6 varidlos 
€<TTi iu.veX6s...<TViJ,7rav 8' ovtco to adofia 
fMeraXapL^dvei 81 avrav TrpcoTrjs p.ev Koi 
fiaXicrra Kivqaeoas, eVt ravrt] 8' alvBrj- 
aecos, XIV. p. 313 avTi] yap (i.e. j; 
Ke<f)aXT]) KaOdivep ris aKpoTToXis eVrt rov 
(Tco/jLaTos Kal TCOV ripicordrcov Kal avay- 
Kcuorarcov avBpconois alcrdrjcrecov oIktjt^- 
piov. Plato had made the head the 
central organ of the reason ( Tim. 69 
sq. : see Grote's Plato iii. pp. 272, 
287, Aristotle 11. p. 179 sq.), if in- 
deed the speculations of the Timseus 
may be regarded as giving his serious 
physiological views ; but he had postu- 
lated other centres of the emotions 
and the appetites, the heart and the 
abdomen. Aristotle, while rightly re- 
fusing to localise the mind as mind, 
had taken a retrograde step physio- 
logically, when he transferred the 
centre of sensation from the brain to 
the heart; e.g. de Part. Anim. ii. 10 
(p. 656). Galen, criticizing his pre- 
decessors, says of Aristotle 8r)X6s icrn 
KareyvcoKas p-ev avrov (i.e. rov eyKccpd- 

Xov) reXeav dxprjcrrlav, (pavepas 6' opo- 
Xoye'iv al8ovpevos {Op. III. p. 625). The 
Stoics however (Zt^kui/ Kal Xpycrimros 
dpa T<a a-CpeTcpco xopw TTavri) Were eveu 
worse offenders ; and in reply to them 
more especially Galen elsewhere dis- 
cusses the question irorcpov eyKecl)aXos 
^ Kap8ia rfjv dpxrjv e\et, Op. V. p. 213 
sq. Bearing in mind all this diversity 
of opinion among ancient physiologists, 
we cannot fail to be struck in the 
text not only with the correctness of 
the imag'C but also with the propriety 
of the terms ; and we ai'o forcibly 
reminded that among the Apostle's 
most intimate companions at this time 
was one whom he calls ' the beloved 
physician' (iv. 14). 

20—23. ' You died with Christ to 
your old life. All mundane relations 
have ceased for you. Why then do 
you — you who have attained your 
spiritual manhood — submit still to 
the rudimentary discipline of children? 
Why do you — you who are citizens of 
heaven — bow your necks afresh to 
the tyranny of material ordinances, as 
though you were still living iu the 
world ? It is the same old story again ; 
the same round of hard, meaningless, 
vexatious prohibitions, ' Handle not,' 
' Taste not,' ' Touch not.' What folly ! 
When all these things — these meats 
and drinks and the like — are earthly, 
perishable, wholly trivial and unim- 
portant ! They are used, and there 
is an end of them. What is this, but 
to draw down upon yourselves the 
denimciations uttered by the prophet 
of old ? What is this but to abandon 
God's word for precepts which arc 
issued by human authority and incul- 
cated by human teachers ? All such 
things have a show of wisdom, I grant. 
There is an officious parade of re- 
ligious devotion, an eager affectation 
of humility ; there is a stern ascetic 
rigour, which ill-treats the body : but 
there is nothing of any real value 
to check indulgence of the flesh.' 



[II. 21, 22 

doyjuaTi^ecrde ', "Mi; ayp-rj jULrjde yevcr] /uLtj^e Biyri^ ^^(Jx. 

2o. From the theological tenets of 
the false teachers the Apostle turns 
to the ethical — from the objects of 
their worship to the principles of 
their conduct. The baptism into 
Christ, he argues, is death to the 
world. The Christian has passed 
away to another sphere of existence. 
Mundane ordinances have ceased to 
have any value for him, becaiise his 
mundane life has ended. They be- 
long to the category of the perishable; 
he has been translated to the region 
of the eternal It is therefore a denial 
of his Christianity to subject himself 
again to their tyranny, to return once 
more to the dominion of the world. 
See again the note on iii. i. 

el dTredavere] ' if ye died, when ye 
were baptized into Christ.' For this 
connexion between baptism and death 
see the notes on ii. ii, iii. 3. This 
death has many aspects in St Paul's 
teaching. It is not only a dying with 
Christ, 2 Tim. ii. 1 1 et yap avvaneBa- 
vofiev ; but it is also a dying to or from 
something. This is sometimes repre- 
sented as sin, Rom. vi. 2 olnves dnedd- 
voyav TTj djiapTia (comp. W. 7, 8); 

sometimes as self, 2 Cor. v. 14, 1 5 apa oi 

irdvTfs dTviBavov . . .tva 01 fc5i/rer firjKeTi 

iavTols (coa-iv; sometimes as the laio, 

Rom. vii. 6 KaTT]pyr]6r]p.iv diTo Tov v6- 
fMov divoBavovTes, Gal. ii. 1 9 bid vofiov 
vofia dnedavov ; sometimes stiU more 
widely as the world, regarded as the 
sphere of all material rules and all 
mundane interests, so here and iii. 3 
dueddveTf yap. In all cases St Paul 
uses the aorist dniOavov, never the 
perfect ridv-qKa ; for he wishes to em- 
phasize the one absolute crisis, which 
was marked by the change of changes. 
When the aorist is wanted, the com- 
pound verb dTro6in]a-Keiv is used ; when 
the perfect, the simple verb dvtja-Keiv ; 
see Buttmann Ausf Gramm. § 114. 
This rule holds universally in the 
Greek Testament. 
OTTO Tuiv (TToixfiov K.T.X.] 1. 0. ' from 

the rudimentary, disciplinary, ordi- 
nances, whose sphere is the mundane 
and sensuous': see the note on ver. 
8. For the pregnant expression dno- 
Oavelv diTo Comp. Gal. v. 4 Karrjpyijdrjre 
dno XpicTTov (so too Rom. vii. 2, 6), 
2 Cor. XL 3 (pdapji . . .dnb rrjs dTrXorrjTos, 
and see A. Buttmann p. 277 note. 

boyfiaTi^ea-de] 'are ye overridden 
with precepts, ordinances' In the 
Lxx the verb Soy/iQTtXeti/ is used seve- 
ral times, meaning ' to issue a decree,' 
Esth. iii. 9, I Esdr. vi. 33, 2 Mace. x. 
8, XV. 36, 3 Mace. iv. 11. Elsewhere 
it is applied most commonly to the 
precepts of philosophers ; e.g. Justin 

Apol. i. 7 °* ^^ "EXXj^crt TO. avTois 
dpeara Soy^art (ravres €k Travrbs ra 
ivl ovofxari (j)i,\o(To(f)ias trpocrayopev- 
ovrai (comp. § 4), Epict. iii. 7, 17 sq. 
el dekeis eivai (})i\6aro(f)os...8oyfiaTi^<oi' 
rd al(TXpd. Here it would include 
alike the Soy/nara of the Mosaic law 
(ver. 14) and the Soy/Ltara of the ' phi- 
losophy' denounced above (ver. 8). 
Both are condemned ; the one as super- 
seded though once authoritative, the 
other as wholly vexatious and un- 
wan-antable. Examples are given in 
the following verse, fir) a'^rj x.r.X. 
For the construction here, where 
the more remote object, which would 
stand in the dative with the active 
voice (2 Mace. X. 8 e8oyp.dTi(Tav...Ta 
rav 'lovbaicdv Wvei), becomes the 
nominative of the passive, compare 

Xprip.aTi^e(x6ai Matt. ii. 12, 22, StOKO- 

vela-dai Mark X. 45, and see Winer 
§ xxxix. p. 326, A. Buttmann p. 163, 
Kiihuer § 378, n. p. 109. 

21. Mi) d\lrT] K.rX] The Apostle dis- 
paragingly repeats the prohibitions of 
the false teachers in their own words, 
' Handle not, neither taste, neither 
touch.' The rabbinical passages quoted 
in Schottgen show how exactly St 
Paul's language reproduces, not only 
the spirit, but even the form, of these 
injunctions. The Latin commenta- 
tors, Hilary and Pelagius, suppose 

II. 22] 



ecTTLV iravTa ek (pdopav Trj d7ro^pr](T6L), kuto. to. 

these prohibitions to be the Apostle's 
own, thus making a complete shipwreck 
of the sense. So too St Ambrose de 
Noe et Area 25 (i. p. 267), de Abr. i. 
6 (i. p. 300). "We may infer from the 
language of St Augustine who argues 
against it, that this was the popular 
interpretation in his day : Epist. cxix 
(11. p. 512) 'tanquam praeceptum pu- 
tatur apostoli, nescio quid tangere, 
gustare, attaminare, prohibentis.' The 
ascetic tendency of the age thus 
fastened upon a slight obscurity in 
the Greek and made the Apostle 
recommend the very practices which 
he disparaged. For a somewhat simi- 
lar instance of a misinterpretation 
commonly received see the note on 
Tois doyfiaaiu ver. 1 4. Jerome how- 
ever (i. p. 878) had rightly interpreted 
the passage, illustrating it by the pre- 
cepts of the Talmud. At a stiU eai-lier 
date TertuUian, Adv. Marc, v, 19, 
gives the correct interpretation. 

These prohibitions relate to defile- 
ment contracted in divers ways by 
contact with impure objects. Some 
were doubtless reeuactments of the 
Mosaic law ; while others would be 
exaggerations or additions of a rigor- 
ous asceticism, such as we find among 
the Essene prototypes of these Colos- 
sian heretics, e. g. the avoidance of oil, 
of wine, or of flesh-meat, the shunning 
of contact with a stranger or a re- 
ligious inferior, and the like ; see pp. 
83 sq. For the religious bearing of 
this asceticism, as springing from the 
dualism of these heretical teachers, 
see above, pp. 77, 102 sq, 

axlrtj] The diS"erence between aTrrea- 
Bai and diyyaveiv is not great, and in 
some passages where they occur toge- 
ther, it is hard to distinguish them : 
e.g. Exod. xix. 1 2 npoa-fx^Te iavro'is rov 
dva^rjvai tls to opos Kai diyelv rt av- 
rov' Tray o ay^ajievos rov opovs davaTco 
Te\fvn](Tfi, Eur. Bacch. 617 ovr ediyev 
ovff^ !//■ a ^' ^fiuv, Arist. de Gen. et Corr. 
1. 8 (p. 326) bia Ti ov yiyverai dylAap-eva 

ev, axnrep v8u>p vSaros otov ^tyj7 ; 
Dion Chrys. Or. xxxiv (11. p. 50) ol 
8' (K Trapepyov irpocriaa-iu aiTTop-evoi 
fiovov rov Trpayfiaros, cocnrep ol (TirovBrjs 

diyydvovTfs, Themist. Paraphr. 
Arist. 95 T^v 8e d(j)^v avrmv anTftrBai 
rav al(r6i]Toyv dvayKoiov' Koi yap rov- 
vojia avTfjs Ik rov aTTTfaOai koi 6iy- 
ydveiv. But arrTea-dat is the stronger 
word of the two. This arises from 
the fact that it frequently suggests, 
though it does not necessarily involve, 
the idea of a voluntary or conscious 
efi"ort, 'to take hold of — a suggestion 
which is entirely wanting to the co- 
lourless word Oiyydveiv; comp. The- 
mist. Parap)hr. Arist. 94 7 rav ^cowv 
d(f>fi Kpicris ecrrl Kal dvTiXr]yjri.s rov 6iy- 
ydvovTos. Hence in Xeu. Cyrop.i.^. 
5 on ere, (pavai, opa, orav jikv rov aprov 
dyl/Tj, els ov8iv rrjv X^'P" dno'^cop.evov, 
OTOV 8e rovraiv rivos diyrjs, evdvs dnoKa- 
Ba'ipei rf]v X'^'-P^ ^ *s ^o- x^i-pop^anrpa k.t.X. 
Thus the words chosen in the Latin Ver- 
sions, tangere for anreaOai and attami- 
nare or contrectare for diyelv, are un- 
fortunate, and ouglit to be transposed. 
Our English Version, probably influ- 
enced by the Latin, has erred in the 
same dii-ection, translating dirreaOai 
by 'touch' and diyelp by 'handle.' 
Here again they must be transposed. 
' Handle ' is too strong a word for ei- 
ther ; though in default of a better it 
may stand for dnTea-dai, which it more 
nearly represents. Thus the two words 
dyf/^T] and 6l.yr]s being separate in mean- 
ing, yevar] may well interpose ; and the 
three together will form a descending 
series, so that, as Beza (quoted in 
Trench N. T. Syn. § xvii. p. 57) well 
expresses it, 'decrescente semper 
oratione, intelligatur crescere super- 

On the other hand d-^rj has been 
interpreted here as referring to the 
relation of husband and wife, as e.g. 
in I Cor. vii. i yvvaiKos /w) dnTea-dai ; 
and the prohibition would then be 
illustrated by the teaching of the ho- 



[II. 22 


retics in i Tim. iv. 3 ko>\v6vt(ov yafidv. 
But, whatever likelihood there may be 
that the Colossian false teachers also 
held this doctrine (see above, p. 83 sq.), 
it nowhere appears in the context, 
and we should not expect so import- 
ant a topic to be dismissed thus cur- 
sorily. Moreover diyyavfiv is used as 
commonly in this meaning as aivreaQai 
(see Gataker Op. Crit. p. 79, and ex- 
amples might be multiplied) ; so that 
all ground for assigning it to oTn-eo-- 
6ai especially is removed. Both an-- 
readai and 6iyyav(iv refer to defile- 
ment incurred through the sense of 
touch, though in different degrees ; 
' Handle not, nor yet taste, nor even 

22. ' Only consider what is the real 
import of this scrupulous avoidance. 
Why, you are attributing an inherent 
value to things which are fleeting ; 
you yourselves are citizens of eternity, 
and yet your thoughts are absorbed 
in the perishable.' 

a] ' which things,' i.e. the meats 
and drinks and other material objects, 
regarded as impure to the touch. The 
antecedent to a is implicitly involved 
in the prohibitions iit) ayJArj k.t.X. 

ecTTiv fls (fjdopdv] ' are destined for 
corruption.' for similar expressions 
see Acts viii. 20 etr) ds dTrcoXeiaj/ 
(comp. ver. 23 ds x^^V" 'rriKp^as Koi 
(Tvv8fap.ov a.8iicias...oura), 2 Pet. ii. 12 
yey fvmineva ety SXcoaiv Koi (ftffopav. 

For the word 4>dopd, invohing the idea 
of ' decomposition,' see the note on Gal. 
vi. 8. The expression here corresponds 
to fls dcfiebpava eKjSdXXerai {fKiropevf- 
Tai), Matt. XV. 17, Mark vii. 19. 

rfj aTroxpwfi] ' in the consuming.' 
Comp. Senec. de Vit. beat. 7 *in ipso 
iisu sui periturum.' "While the verb 
cnToxp(i>p-a.i is common, the substantive 
dn6xpr}(Tii is extremely rare : Plut. 
Mor. p. 267 F ;;^atp€H' rals Toiavrais 
dnoxp^cfci- nol (TVCTToKais rcov nepirrdyv 
(i.e. ' by such modes of consuming and 
abridging superfluities'), Dion. Hal. 

A. a. i. 58 eV dTroxpi](Tei yfjs fioipas. 

The unusual word was chosen for its 
expressiveness : the xPW'^s bere was 
an dTToxpTja-is ; the things could not 
be used without rendering them unfit 
for further use. The subtlety of the 
expression in the original cannot be 
reproduced in any translation. 

On the other hand the clause is 
sometimes interpreted as a continua- 
tion of the language of the ascetic 
teachers ; ' Touch not things which all 
lead to ruin by their abuse.' This in- 
terpretation however has nothing to 
recommend it. It loses the point of 
the Apostle's argument ; while it puts 
upon eivai els (})6opdu a meaning which 
is at least not natural. 

Kara k.t.X] connected directly with 
W. 20, 21, so that the words a iariv . . 

rfi dnoxpr\(Tei, are a parenthetical com- 

TO. (VTaXp-ara k.t.X.] The absence of 
both preposition and article before 5t- 
daa-KoXias shows that the two words 
are closely connected. They are placed 
here in their proper order ; for eVrdX- 
fiara describes the source of autliority 
and 8i8a(TKaXias the medium of com- 
munication. The expression is taken 
ultimately from Isaiah xxix. 13, where 
the words run in the lxx, fj.dTr]v de 

cTf^ovrai /Lie, 8i8d(rKOVTes evrdXfiaTa dv- 

Opdirmv Koi 8i8a<rKaX.ias. The Evan- 
gelists (Matt. XV. 9, Mark vii. 7), quot- 
ing the passage, substitute in the latter 
clause diSdcTKorres 8i8a<TKaXias evrdX- 
fxara avdpwircov. 

The coincidences in St Paul's lan- 
guage here with our Lord's words as 
related in the Gospels (Matt. xv. 
I — 20, Mark vii. i — 23) are striking, 
and suggest that the Apostle had this 
discourse in his mind, (i) Both alike 
argue against these vexatious ordi- 
nances from the perishableness of 
meats. (2) Both insist upon the indif- 
ference of such things in themselves. 
In Mark vii. 19 the Evangelist em- 
phasizes the importance of our Lord's 

II. 23] 



^^cLTLva e<TTiv Xoyov fiev e^ovTa (rocpia^ ev edeXoBpi^- 

words on this occasion, as practically 
abolishing the Mosaic distinction of 
meats by declaring all alike to be 
clean {nadaplCav ; see the note on ver. 
16). (3) Both alike connect such or- 
dinances with the practices condemn- 
ed in the prophetic denunciation of 

23. ' All such teaching is worthless. 
It may bear the semblance of wisdom ; 
but it wants the reality. It may make 
an officious parade of religious service ; 
it may vaunt its humility ; it may 
treat the body with merciless rigour ; 
but it entirely fails in its chief aim. 
It is powerless to check indulgence of 
the flesh.' 

aTiva\ ' which sort of things' Not 
only these particular precepts, /xjj ay^fji 
k.tX., but all precepts falling under 
the same category are condemned. 
For this force oianva as distinguished 
from a, see the notes on Gal. iv. 24, 
V. 19, Phil. iv. 3. The antecedent 
here is not ivrakfxaTa Koi 8i8aa-Ka- 
Xias K.T.X., but the prohibitions given 
in ver. 21. 

Xoyov fj-ev k.t.X.] ' having a reputa- 
tion/or wisdom,'' but not the reality. 
The corresponding member, which 
should be introduced by Se, is sup- 
pressed; the oppositive clause being 
postponed and appearing later in a 
new form, ovk iv rififi nvi x.r.X. Such 
suppressions are common in classical 
writers, more especially in Plato ; see 
Kiihner § 531, 11, p. 813 sq., Jelf § 766, 
and comp. Winer § Ixiii. p. 719 sq. 
Jerome therefore is not warranted in 
attributing St Paul's language here to 
'imperitia artis grammaticae' {Epist. 
cxxi, Op. n. p. 884). On the contrary 
it is just the license which an adept 
in a language would be more likely 
to take than a novice. 

In this sentence \cyov txovra ao- 
(fiiaa is best taken as a single predicate, 
so that fariv is disconnected from 
expvra. Otherwise the construction 
icTTiv e;(oi/ra (for fxei) would be 

supported by many parallels in the 
Greek Testament ; see Winer § xlv. 

The phrase \6yov ex^iv nvos, so far 
as I have observed, has four meanings. 

(a) Two as applied to the thinking 
subject, (i) ' To take account of, to hold 
in account, to pay respect to ' : e. g. 

-^Sch. Prom. 231 ^porccv 8e T<£)V ra- 
Xanrcopfov \6yov ovk fcrxev ov8eva, De- 

mosth. de Coron. § 199 finep rj 86^r]s 

T) TTpoyovwv T] Tov fifWovTos olmvoi 
fixe Xoyov, Plut. Vit. Philop. 18 ttcos 
a^iov fKeivov Xoyop fx^'-^ '"'''^ dv8pos 

K.T.X. (ii) ' To possess the reason or 
accoimt or definition of,' 'to have a 
scientific knowledge of; Plato Gorg. 

p. 465 A Texvqv be avrffv ov (prjfit, elvai 
aXX ep-TTeipiav, on ovk exei Xoyov ov- 
8eva wv 7rpo(r0epet, oirola arra ttjv (^v- 
crip ea-TLv, and so frequently. Tiiese 
two senses are recognised by Aristotle, 
Eth. Nic. i. 13 (p. 1 102), where he 
distinguishes the meaning of the ex- 
pressions exeiv Xoyov tov TTorpos rj tcov 
(piXcov and ex^^^ Xoyov Ta>v iiadrjTiKOiv. 

(b) Two as applied to the object of 
thought, (iii) ' To have the credit or 
reputation of,' as here. This sense of 
e'xeiv Xoyov, ' to be reputed,' is more 
commonly found with an infinitive : 
e.g. Plato Epin. 987 b avrhs 'A0po8i- 

Tr]s eivai (Txe8ov e^ei Xoyov. (iv) ' To 

fulfil the definition of, to possess the 
characteristics, to have the nature of ; 
e.g. Philo Vit. Cant. 4 (11. p. 477) eKa- 
Tepov 8e irrjyfjs Xoyov f'xov, Plut. Mor. 
p. 637 ^ '"o 8e coov ovT€ apx^jS e'xei Xo- 
yov, ov yap iKpicrraTai Trpcirov, ovre 
oXov (pvaiv, (IreXes yap iariv, ib. 640 F 
Sel vrpos TO ip.<l)vTev6fXivov x^po-S Xoyov 
exei-v TO 8e^op,€vov. The senses of Xo- 
yov e'xeiv with other constructions, or 
as used absolutely, are very various, 
e.g. ' to be reasonable,' ' to hold dis- 
course,' ' to bear a ratio,' etc., but do 
not come under consideration here. 
Nor again does such an expression as 
Plut. Mor. p. 550 fJii]Te TOV Xoyov 
"xonv TOV vopo6(Tov, ' not being in pos- 



Lii. 23 

CKeia Kai TUTreivocppoavi^t] [^/ca/J dcpeiheia (Tco/uLaTO^, ovk 

session of, not knowing, the intention 
of thelegislatoi''; for the definite ar- 
ticle removes it from the category of 
the cases considered. 

eV ede\o6pt](rKeia] 'in volunteered, 
self-imposed, officious, supererogatory 
service.' One or both of these two 
ideas, (i) ' excessive readiness, officious 
zeal,'(ii) 'affectation, unreality,' are in- 
volved in this and similar compounds ; 
e.g. eSeXobovXfia, fdeXoKunrjai-s, edfXo- 
icivSvvos, €6e\oK(o(f)e'LU, edeXoprjrtop, idt- 
Xonpo^evos : these compounds being 
used most frequently, though not al- 
ways (as this last word shows), in a 
bad sense. This mode of expression 
was naturalised in Latin, as appears 
from Augustine Epist. cxlix. 27 (11. 
p. 5 14) 'Sic enim et vulgo dicitur qui 
divitem affectat thelodives, et qui sa- 
pientem thelosapiens, et cetera hujus- 
modi.' Epiphanius, when writing of 
the Pharisees, nut content with the 
word here supplied by St Paul, coins 
a double compound edeXonepiaaodpt]- 
(TKfla, Haer. i. 16 (p. 34). 

TaTT€ivo(^pocrvvri] The word is here 
disparaged by its connexion, as in ver. 
18 (see the note there). The force of 
idfko- may be regarded as carried on 
to it. Real genuine TaneiPo<^po(rvvr] 
is commended below; iii. 12. 

d(j)ei8eui crcifjLaTos] ' hard treatment 
ofthehody.' The expression aipeibe'iv 
Tov a-atfiaros is not uncommon, being 
used most frequently, not as here of 
ascetic discipline, but rather of cou- 
rageous exposure to hardship and 
danger in war, e.g. Lysias Or. Fun. 
25, Joseph. B. J. iii. 7. 18, Lucian 
^7iacA. 24, Plut. Vit. Pericl. 10; in 
Plut. Mor. p. 1 37 c however, of a stu- 
dent's toil, and i&. p. 135 E, more gene- 
rally of the rigorous demands made 
by the soul on the body. The substan- 
tive d(f)ei8€ia or dcfyeidia does not often 
occur. On the forms in -eta and -la 
derived from adjectives in -ijs see 
Buttmann Ausf. Gramm. § 119, 11. 
p. 416 sq. The great preponderance 

of manuscript authority favours the 
form dcfifideia here : but in such ques- 
tions of orthography the fact car- 
ries less weight than in other matters. 
The Kol before d0etSeig should proba- 
bly be omitted ; in which case d0f tSei'a 
becomes an instrumental dative, ex- 
plaining Xoyov ex*"""" (To(pias. While 
the insertion would naturally occur to 
scribes, the omission gives more point 
to the sentence. The (deXodprjaKeia 
Koi Ta7reivo(})po(rvvT} as the religious 
elements are thus separated from the 
d^etSeta crdpaTos as the practical rule. 
OVK ev Tipfi K.T-.X.] ' yet not really of 
any value to remedy indulgence of 
the flesh.' So interpreted the words 
supply the oppositive clause to \6yov 
pev (^ovTa ao(j)ias, as the presence of 
the negative ovk natm-ally suggests. 
If the sentence had been undisturbed, 
this oppositive clause would natm-ally 
have been introduced by Se, but the 
interposition of ev edeXodprja-Kela K.T.X. 

has cliauged its form by a sort of at- 
traction. For this sense of fv Tip.f1 
comp. Lucian Merc. cond. 17 tcl Kaiva 

Toiv vTToBrjparcov ev Tipfj rivX Kai enipe- 
Xeia ecrTiv: similai'ly Hom. II. ix. 319 
ev 8e Ifj Tipfi K.T.X. The preposition 
npos, like our English 'for,' when used 
after words denoting utility, value, 
sufficiency, etc., not uncommonly in- 
troduces the object to check or prevent 
or cure which the thing is to be em- 
ployed. And even though utility may 
not be directly expressed in words, 
yet if the idea of a something to be 
remedied is present, this preposition 
is freely used notwithstanding. See 
Isocr.jP/u7. 16 (p. 85)7rpoy Tovy/3ap/3d- 
povs xP'?o''M'"'j Arist. If. A. iii. 21 (p, 
522) (rvp(pep€i irpos rdi diappoias i] toi- 
avTT] paXiora, de Respir. 8 (p. 474) 
dvdyKrj yiveadai kuto'^v^iv, el peXXei 
rev^eadaL crcoTrjpias' tovto yap ^OTjdei 
■n-pbs ravTTjv Tr]V CJ)6opav, Lucian Pisc. 
27 ;^pJ/cri/:toi' yovv Koi npos eKeivovs ro 
ToiovTov, Galen Oj). xii. p. 399 xP'^t^^' 
va ye rivi vrpos to nados dpKreia <TTe- 

II. 23] 



eV Tijurj TLVi 7rpo<s 7rXr](TiJiOvr]v Trjs aapKOS. 

an, p. 420 Tov 86vTos avra npos aka>- 
rreKias (fyaXaKpdaeis k.t.X., p. 43*^ (Tvve- 
dT)Kav...(papfiaKa rrpbs peovaas rpix^as, 
p. 476 ^paxvTCLTTjv e^ovTi. dvvapLv <os 
Trpbs TO TrpoKeipevov crvfiTTTCopa, p. 4^2 
TOVTO Se Koi Trpos ra iv oXco ra cratp-aTi 
XprjO'Teov 8e Tratri Tois avayeypapfxevois 
^OT]di]pa(Ti TTpos ras yivopevas 81 eyKav- 
crtv Ke(f)aXaKyLas, p. 601 KaXKiaTov ivpos 
avTTjp (pdppaKov iyx^opevov vap8ivov 
fivpov. These examples from Galen 
are only a few out of probably some hun- 
dreds, which might be collected from 
the treatise in which they occur, the 
de Compositione Medicamentorum. 

The language, which the Colossian 
false teachers would use, may be in- 
ferred from the account given by Philo 
of a Judaic sect of mystic ascetics, 
who may be regarded, not indeed as 
their direct, but as their collateral 
ancestors (see p. 84; note 2, p. 92), the 
Therapeutes of Egypt; de Vit. Cont. 
§ 4 (11. p. 476 sq.) rpv^axTLV vtvo cro- 
</)t'ay icTTicopevoi Trkovaicos Kol dcpdofcos 
TO 86yp,aTa ;!^op7;yoi5(T?yr, toy Ka\...p6- 
\is 81' €^ ijfxepmv dnoyeiiecrdai rpo- 
<})fjs dvayKULas- ■ (TLToiiVTai 8e...apTou ei)- 
reX^, Koi b'^ov dXes...TToTov vScop vap.a- 
Tiaiov avTois i<TTLv,..Tr\rj(Tp.ovT)v <is 
ix^pov re koi ini[iovkov eKTpfTTopevoi 
^vx^s Kol o-cofxaTos. St Paul appa- 
rently has before him some similar 
exposition of the views of the Colos- 
sian heretics, either in writing or 
(more probably) by report from Epa- 
phras. In reply he altogether denies 
the claims of this system to the title 
of ao(f)'La; he disputes the value of 
these 86ypara; be allows that this 
Trkrja-povri is the great evil to be check- 
ed, the fatal disease to be cured; but 
he will not admit that the remedies 
prescribed have any substantial and 
lasting efficacy. 

The interpretation here offered is 
not new, but it has been strangely 
overlooked or despised. The pas- 
sages adduced will I trust show the 

groundlessness of objections which 
have been brought against it owing to 
the use of the preposition ; and in all 
other respects it seems to be far pre- 
ferable to any rival explanation which 
has been suggested. The favourite 
interpretations in ancient or modern 
times divide themselves into two 
classes, according to the meaning as- 
signed to Trpos irkrjcrp.ovriv rfjs crapKos. 
(i) It is explained in a good sense: 
' to satisfy the reasonable wants of the 
body.' In this case ovk ev rtpfi nvi is 
generally interpreted, ' not holding it 
(the body) in any honour.' So the 
majority of the fathers, Greek and 
Latin. This has the advantage of 
preserving the continuity of the words 
OVK iv Tipfj Tivl Trpos n\Tj(Tpovf)v K.T.\. : 
but it assigns an impossible sense to 
7rXt]ap,ovf] TTJs aapKos. For TrkrjcrpLOVTi 
always denotes ' repletion,' ' surfeit- 
ing,' ' excessive indulgence,' and can- 
not be used of a reasonable attention 
to the physical cravings of nature; as 
Galen says, Op. xv. p. 113 navrav etw- 
doTcav ov povov larpav dWd /cat rav aX- 
Xwv EXXtjvcov to Tijs irXr](Tpovrjs bvopa 
paXXov TTCos fTTicpepeiv Tals vnep^o- 
Xals TTjs crvppeT pov ttoo-otijtos : 
and certainly neither the Apostle nor 
the Colossian ascetics were likely to 
depart from this universal rule. To 
the long list of passages quoted in 
Wetstein may be added such refer- 
ences as Philo Leg. ad Gai. § i (11. 
p. 546), Clem. Horn. viii. 15, Justin 
Dial. 1 26, Dion. Alex, in Euseb. H.E. 
vii. 25; but they might be increased 
to any extent. (2) A bad sense is 
attached to ■nXr^a-p.ovr), as usage de- 
mands. And here two divergent in- 
terpretations have been put forward, 
(i) The proper continuity of the sen- 
tence is preserved, and the words ovk 
iv Tipfi TivX rrpbs TrXrjo-povfjv t^s aapKos 
are regarded as an exposition of the 
doctrine of the false teachers from 
their own point of view. So Theo- 
dore of Mopsuestia, ov Tipiov vopii^ov 




III. ^ Et ovv crvvt]y€p6r]Te tw \pi(rTw, Ta avta ^t]- 

TeiTEf OV 6 XpLCTTO^ icTTLV 6V ^€^10. TOV QeOV Kudf] fASl/O^' 

Tas TO 8ia iravTOiV Trkrjpovf tt/v crapKa, 
dXKayap naXkov alpovnevovs aTre-x^eadai, 
TMv noWav 8ia Tfjv tov vo/mov irapaBo- 
(Tiv. This able expositor however is 
evidently dissatisfied, for he intro- 
duces his explanation with the words 
a(ra<Pes p-iv icm, ^ovXerai Se etTreii' 
K.T.X. ; and his explanation has not 
been adopted by others. Either the 
sentence, so interpreted, becomes flat 
and unmeaning, though it is obviously 
intended to clinch the whole matter ; 
or the Apostle is made to confirm the 
value of the very doctrines wliich he 
is combating, (ii) The sentence is 
regarded as discontinuous; and it is 
interpreted, ^not of any real value'' 
(or ' not consisting in anything com- 
mendable' or ' 7iot holding the body 
in any honour ') but ' tending to gra- 
tify the carnal desires ' or ' mind. ' 
This in some form or other is almost 
universally adopted by modern inter- 
preters, and among the ancients is 
found in the commentator Hilary. 
The objections to it are serious, {a) 
The dislocation of the sentence is in- 
explicable. There is no indication 
either in the grammar or in the voca- 
bulary that a separate and oppositive 
clause begins with npos irXrja-fiovfiv 
K.T.X., but on the contrary everything 
points to an unbroken continuity. (|3) 
The sense which it attaches to nXria- 
p.ovrj TTJs aapKos is either forced and 
imnatural, or it makes the Apostle 
say what he could not have said. If 
nXT](rixovfi TTJs crapKos could have the 
sense which Hilary assigns to it, ' sa- 
gina camalis sensus traditio humana 
est,' or indeed if it could mean ' the 
mind of the flesh ' in any sense (as it 
is generally taken by modern com- 
mentators), this is what St Paul might 
well have said. But obviously ttXijct- 
p.ovf) TTis a-apKos conveys a very difiier- 
ent idea from such expressions as t6 
<{)V(nov(r6ai vno tov voos Trjs aapKos 

(ver. 1 8) or to <^p6vr}fia ttjs a-apnos 

(Rom. viii. 6, 7), which include pride, 
self-sufficiency, strife, hatred, bigotry, 
and generally everything that is earth- 
bound and selfish. On the other hand, 
if n\ri(rjj.ovfi ttjs crapKos be taken in its 
natural meaning, as applying to coarse 
sensual indulgences, then St Paul 
could not have said without qualifi- 
cation, that this rigorous asceticism 
conduced irpos TrXrjO-povfjv t^s aapKos. 
Such language would defeat its o^vn 
object by its extravagance. 

III. I — 4. 'If this be so; if ye were 
raised with Christ, if ye were trans- 
lated into heaven, what follows ? Why 
you must realise the change. All your 
aims must centre in heaven, where 
reigns the Christ who has thus ex- 
alted you, enthroned on God's right 
hand. All your thoughts must abide 
in heaven, not on the earth. For, I 
say it once again, you have nothing to 
do with mundane things: you died, 
died once for all to the world : you 
are living another life. This life in- 
deed is hidden now: it has no out- 
ward splendom* as men count splen- 
dour; for it is a life with Christ, a life 
in God. But the veil will not always 
shroud it. Christ, our life, shall be 
manifested hereafter; then ye also 
shall be manifested with Him and the 
world shall see your glory.' 

I. Et ovv avvTjyepdrjTe K.r.X.] '7/' 

then ye were raised,' not ' have been 
raised.' The aorist awr^yipBrjTe, like 
anfOaveTe (ii. 2o), refers to their bap- 
tism ; and the d ovv here is a resump- 
tion of the el in ii. 20. The sacra- 
ment of baptism, as administered in 
the Apostolic age, involved a twofold 
symbolism, a death or burial and 
a resurrection : see the note on ii. 
12. In the rite itself these were re- 
presented by two distinct acts, the 
disappearance beneath the water and 
the emergence from the water: but 


*Ta avit) (ppoveiTe, jur] tu eirl rfj^ yfi^. ^direddveTe yap, 

Kai ^ ^COt] VfJLWV KeKpVTTTai (TVV TW XpiCTTM 6U TW 0660* 

in the change typified by the rite they 
are two aspects of the same thing, 
'like the concave and convex in a 
circle,' to use an old simile. The ne- 
gative side — the death and burial — 
implies the positive side— the resur- 
rection. Hence the form of the Apo- 
stle's resumption, el dnedaveTe, d ovv 

The change involved in baptism, if 
truly realised, must pervade a man's 
whole nature. It afiects not only his 
practical conduct, but his intellectual 
conceptions also. It is nothing less 
than a removal into a new sphere of 
being. He is translated from earth 
to heaven ; and with this translation 
his point of view is altered, his stan- 
dard of judgment is wholly changed. 
Matter is to him no longer the great 
enemy ; his position towards it is one 
of absolute neutrality. Ascetic rules, 
ritual ordinances, have ceased to have 
any absolute value, irrespective of 
their etfects. Ail these things are of 
the earth, earthy. The material, the 
transitory, the mundane, has given 
place to the moral, the eternal, the 

TCI ava (rjTe'ire k.t.X.] ' Cease to 

concentrate your energies, your 
thoughts on mundane ordinances, and 
realise your new and heavenly life, of 
which Christ is the pole-star.' 

ev Se^tci k.t.X.] ' being seated on the 
right hand of God,' where KaBrijievos 
must not be connected with icrnv ; 
see the note on dn6Kpvcl)oi, ii. 3. This 
particijiial clause is pertinent and 
emphatic, for the session of Christ 
implies the session of the believer 
also ; Ephcs. ii. 4 — 6 6 Se Qeos. . .77/xay . . . 

avve^oiOTTolrjaev Koi crvvqyeipep Koi 

awe KaOiarev ev rois irrovpaviois iv 
Xpto-Tia 'ItjuoC K.r.X. ; comp. Rev. iii. 21 
o riKwi', fiwcco avT<a Kadicrai per epov 
iv rw 6p6vco pov, tos Kaym euiKifaa koi 
eKoBicra pera rov Trarpos pov ev t<5 

6p6va avTov, in the message addressed 
to the principal church of this dis- 
trict : see above, p. 42. Ba/3ai, says 
Chrysostom, ttov t6u vovv oTryjyaye rov 
Tjperepov ; ttws (ppovrjpaTos avrovs eVX?;- 
pcaae peydXov ; ovk rjpKei Ta av(o el- 
ire'iv, ovhei Ov 6 XpiaTos eariv, dWd 
Ti ; 'El/ Se^ifi Toi) Qeov Kadrjpevos' eKel- 
6ev \onzov Ttjv yfjv opdv irapeaKeva^e. 

2. TO. av(o] The same expression 
repeated for emphasis ; * You must 
not only seek heaven ; you must also 
think heaven.' For the opposition of 
TO ava andra eVt Ttjs yfjs in connexion 
with (j)pove2v, comp. Phil. iii. 19, 20 
ol rd erriye la (jipovo v vres, rjjxvtv yap 
TO TToX'iTevpa iv ov pavoli vrrdp^ei ; 
see also Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 17. 
Extremes meet. Here the Apostle 
points the antithesis to controvert a 
Gnostic asceticism : in the Philippian 
letter he uses the same contrast to 
denounce an Epicurean sensuahsm. 
Both alike are guilty of the same fun- 
damental error ; both alike concen- 
trate their thoughts on material, mun- 
dane things. 

3. dneddveTe] 'ye died' in baptism. 
The aorist drreddveTe denotes the past 
act ; the perfect KitcpvuTai. the perma- 
nent effects. For dneddveTe see the 
notes on ii. 12, 20. 

Kf/cpvTTTat] 'is hidden, is buried 
out of sight, to the world.' The Apo- 
stle's argument is this : * When you 
sank under the baptismal water, you 
disappeared for ever to the world. 
You rose again, it is true, but you 
rose only to God. The world hence- 
forth knows nothing of your new life, 
and (as a consequence) your new life 
must know nothing of the world.' 
'Neque Christum,' says Bengel, 'ne- 
que Christianos novit muiidus ; ac ne 
Christianiquidem plane seipsos' ; comp. 

Job. xiv. 17 — 19 TO TTveiip-a Ttjs dXrj- 
delas o 6 Kocrpos ov dvvaTat, XajBelv, oti 
ov Oecopel avTo ov8e yii/wcKej 



[III. 4 

vfjLei's cvv avTip cf)avepco6f](r6(r6€ eV do^t]. 

4- V fwr; 
avTo, vfie'is [Se] yivcocniere avTo-.-o ico- 
u-fios [J-e ovK eVi decopel, vnels 8e deco- 
pelre fie' on ey&> (a, Ka\ vfiels 

4. o XptoTof] A fourth occur- 
rence of the name of Christ in this 
context; comp. ver. 2 tw Xptoroj, o 
XpLO-Tos, ver. 3 a~vv rw Xpicrroj. A 
pronoun would have been more natu- 
ral, but less emphatic. 

j) fo))) Tj/imj/] This is an advance on 
the previous statement, ?? fwj) i^pwi' 
KeKpvnrai, (rvv t(o XptoTca, in two re- 
spects : (i) It is not enough to have 
said that the life is shared with Christ. 
The Apostle declares that the life is 
Christ. Comp. i Joh. v. 12 d excuv t6v 

vlov exfi TTjV Co^rjv, Ign. EpJies. 7 iv 6a- 

vara fo)?) aXridivq (of Christ), Smym. 

4 ^\r\<T0vs Xptcrroy to OLkr\Qivov rip.Q)V ^ijv, 
Ephes. 3 'ir/troCy Xpia-Tos to ddioKpiTov 
T)fx(ov ^fjv, Magn. I 'It/o-oi; Xpl^TTOV TOV 
8La;TavTos i]fioiv ^ijv. (2) For vfxoov is 
substituted 7/pwv. The Apostle hastens 
to include himself among the reci- 
pients of the bounty. For this cha- 
racteristic transition from the second 
person to the first see the note on ii. 
13. The reading vnav here has very 
high support, and on this account I 
have given it as an alternative ; but 
it is most probably a transcriber's cor- 
rection, for the sake of unifonnity 
mth the preceding. 

t6t€ KOI vpeT? K.r.X.] ' The veil which 
now shrouds your higher life from 
others, and even partly from yom-- 
selves, will then be withdrawn. The 
world which persecutes, despises, ig- 
nores now, will then be blinded with 
the dazzling glory of the revelation.' 
Comp. I Joh. iii. i, 2 6 Koap-os ov 

yivcocTKei i]p-a.s, on ovk eyva avTov. 
dyaTrrjTol, vvv TfKva Qeov eap-ev, Koi 
ovnco ((pavepcodrj tI eaoneBa' oi8up.ev 
oTi eav (pavepoidrj, op.0L0i avTm eao- 
fiedn K.r.X., Clem. Rom. 50 ol (jiavepco- 


Brja-ovTai iv Tjj enKTKOTrfj ttjs ^a(n\eias 
TOV "KpicrTov. 

iv bo^rf] Joh. xvii. 22 Trjv bo^av tjv 
hibaxas p.01, Sc'Scoko aiJroTy, Rom.viii. 1 7 
iva KOi (Tvvbo^a(T6<i)p.ev. 

5 — 1 1. 'So then realise this death 
to the world ; kill all your earthly 
members. Is it fornication, impiu-ity 
of whatever kind, passion, evil desire 1 
Or again, is it that covetousness which 
makes a religion, an idolatry, of greed ? 
Do not deceive yourselves. For all 
these things God's wrath will surely 
come. In these sins ye, like other 
Gentiles, indulged in times i)ast, when 
your life was spent amidst them. But 
now everything is changed. Now you 
also must put away not this or that 
desire, but all sins whatsoever. An- 
ger, wrath, malice, slander, filthy 
abuse ; banish it from your hps. Be 
not false one to another in word or 
deed ; but cast ofi" for ever the old 
man with his actions, and put on the 
new, who is renewed from day to day, 
growing unto perfect knowledge and 
refashioned after the image of his 
Creator. In this new life, in this 
regenerate man, there is not, there 
cannot be, any distinction of Greek or 
Jew, of circumcision or uncircumci- 
sion ; there is no room for barbarian, 
for Scythian, for bond or free. Christ 
has displaced, has annihilated, all 
these; Christ is Himself all things 
and in all things.' 

5. The false doctrine of the Gnos- 
tics had failed to check sensual indul- 
gence (ii. 23). The true doctrine of 
the Apostle has power to kUl the 
whole carnal man. The substitution 
of a comprehensive principle for 
special precepts — of the heavenly life 
in Christ for a code of minute ordi- 
nances — at length attains the end 
after which the Gnostic teachers have 
striven, and striven in vain. 

III. 5] 



•^Ne/CjOftJcraTe ovv tu fxeXi] Ta ettl Tfj-s yfj<i' Tropveiav, 
(XKaOapariav, Trados, iTriOv/JLLau kuk/jv, kul Tt]'v 7r\eov- 

l<!eicpcoaare ovv'] i.e. ' Carry out this 
pi-inciple of death to the world (ii. 20 
dneddveTe, iii. 3 a.T7e6dvfTe), and kill 

everything that is mundane and car- 
nal in your being.' 

TO. fieXr] (c.r.X.] Each person has a 
twofold moral personality. There is 
in him the ' old man,' and there is in 
him also 'the new' {vv. 9, 10). The 
old man with all his members must 
be pitilessly slain. It is plain that rd 
fieXt] here is used, like dvOpoiiros in 
ver. 9, not physically, but morally. 
Our actual limbs may be either ra eVi 
Trjs yfji or ra eV Tois ovpdvois, accord- 
ing as they are made instruments for 
the world or for Christ: just as we — 
our whole being — may identify our- 
selves with the TraXaios dvdpanros or 
with the vtos avdpanvos of our twofold 
potentiality. For this use of the phy- 
sical, as a symbol of the moral of 
which it is the potential instrument, 
compare Matt. v. 29 sq. fi Se 6 6<^6a\- 

fios (Tov o Be^ios (TKaudaXi^ei ae, e'^eXe 


I have ventured to punctuate 
after ra inl rrjs yTJs. Thus nopveiav 
K.T.X. are prospective accusatives, 
which should be governed directly by 
some such word as anodiade. But 
several dependent clauses interpose ; 
the last of these incidentally suggests 
a contrast between the past and the 
present ; and this contrast, predomi- 
nating in the Apostle's mind, leads to 
an abrupt recasting of the sentence, 
vvvX Se diroQecrOe Kol vp.els rd ivdvTa, 
in disregard of the original construc- 
tion. This opposition of Trore and vvv 
has a tendency to dislocate the con- 
struction in St Paul, as in i. 22 vvv\ Se 
diTOKaTrjKXdyriTe {OV dnoKariqXKa^iv),!. 26 
vvv he f(j)avfpa>dri : see the note on this 
latter passage. For the whole run of 
the sentence (the parenthetic relative 
clauses, the contrast of past and pre- 
sent, and the broken construction) 


compare Ephes. ii. i — 5 ku) vpids...iv 
ais 7TOTe...ev ols Kai...7rore...6 Se Qeos... 
Ka\ ovras rjpds (rvve^aoTToirjcrfv. 

With the common punctuation the 
interpretation is equally awkward, 
whether we treat ra p.iXri and Trop- 
ve'iav K.T.X. as in direct apposition, or 
as double accusatives, or in any other 
way. The case is best put by Seve- 

nanus, aapKa KoXel ttjv dp.apTiav, ify Kal 
Ta fieXr) KUTapidpe'i...6 TraXacos dvBpco- 
TTos icTTLV TO (j)p6vrjp,a TO Trjs dpapTias, 
fieXr] fie avTov at irpd^as rdv dp,apTT]- 
fjiaTcov; but this is an evasion of the 
difficulty, which consists in the direct 
apposition of the instruments and the 
activities, from whatever point they 
are viewed. 

iropveiav k.t.X.] The general order 
is from the less comprehensive to the 
more comprehensive. Thus Tropvela is 
a special kind of uncleanness, while 
aKaOapa-'ia is uncleanncss in any form, 
Ephes. v. 3 TTopviia fie Kal aKadapaia 
nda-a ; comp. Gal. v. 19 nopveia, qko- 
Bapcria, daeXyeia, with the note there. 
Thus again irdOos, though frequently 
referring to this class of sins (Kom. i. 
26, I Thess. iv. 5), Avould include other 
base passions which do not fall under 
the category of aKaOapa-la, as fcr in- 
stance gluttony and intemperance. 

irdBos, imdvpiav] The two WOl'ds 
occur together in i Thess. iv. 5 p.rj eV 
7rd6eL fTriBvp-las. So in a passage closely 
resembling the text. Gal. v. 24 oi fie 
TOV Xpiarov 'irjaov rrjv crdpKa iuravpa- 
aav (Tvv rols TraQrjpauiv kol rats imOv- 
jxiais. The same vice may be viewed 
as a TTaBos from its passive and an eVi- 
6vp.'ia from its active side. The word 
iTTi6vp.'ia is not used here in the re- 
sti'icted sense which it has e.g. in 
Arist. Elh. Nic. ii. 4, where it ranges 
with anger, fear, etc., being related 
to T:d6os as the species to the genus 
(see Gal. 1. c. note). In the Greek 
Testament ini6vp,'i.a has a much mere 



[III. 6 

ep'tav, riTL^ IcttIv eldooXoXaTpeia, '^^i a ep-)(€.TaL t] opyt] 

comprehensive sense ; e.g. Joh. yiii. 44 
ras iTTi.dvfjiias rod Trarpos vfJ-aiv BeXere 
TToie'iv. Here, if anytliin?, i-rriBvii'ia 
is wider than irados. While TzaBos in- 
cludes all ungovernable affections, eVi- 
evfjiia KaKTj reaches to all evil longings. 
'l3ov, says Chi'ysostom, yei/tKoSj to irav 
fhre' TrdvTa yap emdvp-La kukij, ^acTKa- 
via, opyq, XtiTTT]. The epithet is added 
because emdviiia is capable of a good 
sense : comp. i Cor. x. 6 eTridvfirjTas 

Ka\ TTjv TrXeove^iav] ^ and especially 
covetojisness.' Impui-ity and covet- 
ousness may be said to divide between 
them nearly the whole domain of hu- 
man selfishness and vice; ' Si avaritia 
prostrata est, exsurgit libido' (Cypr. 
de Mort. 3). The one has been already 
dealt with ; the other needs now to be 
specially denoimced ; comp. Ephes. 
V. 3 TTopveia Se Koi aKnOapaia Trdaa tj 
Tj-Xeove^ia. ' Homo exti'a Deum,' says 
Bengel (on Rooi. i. 29), 'quaerit pabu- 
lum in creatura materiaU vel per vo- 
luptatem vel per avaritiam.' Comp. 
Test, xii Pair. Jud. 18 cjivXa^aade 

oiv, TiKVa flOV, OTTO TTjS TTOpVUUS Kai T1]S 

(})iXnpyvp'Las...oTi ravra dcfjiara vop.Qv 
Qiov. Similarly Lysis Pythag. 4 {Epi- 
stol. Graec. p. 602, ed. Ilercher) ovo- 
fxa^aifii 8' ai* avTcov [i.e. the vices] 
trpcLTot/ (TTeXdav ras p-arepas uKpacriav 
Te Koi TtXeovt^'iav' ap<pa} Se noXvyovot 
Tre4>vKavTi. It must be remembered 
that TrXeove^ia is much wider than 
(l^iXapyvpia (sce Trench N. T. Syn. 
§ xxiv. p. jj sq.), which itself is called 
pi^o- iravTcov twv kokcov (i Tim. VI. lo). 

The attempt to give irXiove^ia here 
and in other passages the sense of 'im- 
pm-ity' (see e.g. Hammond on Rom. 
i. 29) is founded on a misconception. 
The words TrXeoveKrdv, irXtove^ia, will 
sometimes be used in relation to sins 
of uncleanuess, because such may be 
acts of injustice also. Thus adultery 
is not only impurity, but it is robbery 
also : hence i Thess. iv. 6 to p.r) virep- 
^aivfiv Kol nXeoveKTe7v ev Tw npaypaTi 

Tov dbeXcjibv avTov (see the note 
there). In other passages again there 
will bean accidental connexion; e.g. 
Ephes. iv. 19 els epyacrlav aKadapa-ias 
TraoT/j ev nXeove^ia, i.e. 'with greedi- 
ness,' '■with entire disregard for the 
rights of others.' But nowhere do 
the words in themselves suggest this 
meaning. Here the particles kqI ttjv 
show that a new type of sin is intro- 
duced with TiXfoi'e^iav : and in the 
parallel passage Ephes. v. 3 (quoted 
above) the same distinction Ls indi- 
cated by the change from the con- 
junctive particle Ka\ to the disjunctive 
17. It is an error to suppose that this 
sense of irXeove^la is supported by 
Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. 12 (p. 551 sq.) 
cos yap T] rrXeove^ia Tropveia XeyeTai, ttj 
avTapKfla ivavTiovpivq. On the Con- 
verse eiTor of explaining aKadapala to 
mean 'greediness,' 'covetousness,' see 
the note on i Thess. ii. 3. 

rJTis K.T.X.] '■for it is idolatry'' : 
comp. Ephes. v. 5 nXeovenTrjs, o (or os) 
eaTiv fld(oXoXaTp7]s, Polyc. Phil. II 
' Si quis non abstinuerit se ab avari- 
tia, ab idololatvia coinquinabitur' (see 
Philippians p. 63 on the misunder- 
standing of this passage). The covet- 
ous man sets up another object of 
worship besides God. There is a sort 
of religious purpose, a devotion of the 
soul, to greed, which makes the sin 
of the miser so hateful. The idea of 
avarice as a religion may have been 
suggested to St Paul by our Lord's 
words. Matt. vi. 24 ov dvvaade 0eo) 
dovXfveiv Kal papava, though it is a 
mistake to suppose that Mammon was 
the name of a Syrian deity. It ap- 
l)ears however elsewhere in Jewish 
wi'iters of this and later ages: e.g. 
Philo de Mon. i. 2 (11. p. 214 sq.) irav- 
Taxodev pev apyvpiov Ka\ )(pv(Tiov eKiro- 
pi^ovcri, TO Se nopiadev cos ayaXpa dfiov 
iv dbvTois drj(Tavpo(pvXaKo\j(TLV (\vith the 
whole context), and jSheirioth Rahbo. 
fol. 121. 3 'Qui opes suas multiplicat 
per foenus, ille est idololatra' (with 

III. 7, 


21 1 

Tou Qeov' '^ ev oh Kat vfjiei^ TrepLeiraTricrare. TTOTe, otc 
entire ev tovtol^' vvvl oe ciTrodea-de Kai v/ixeh to. iravra, 

other passages quoted by Wetstein 
and Schottgen ou Epbes. v. 5). St 
Chrysostom, Horn, in Joann. Ixv 
(vin. p. 392 sq.), enlarges on the cult 
of wealth — the cousecration of it, the 
worship paid to it, the sacrifices de- 
manded by it: Tj be (j)i\apyvpia Xeyei, 
QiiiTou /iot Ttjii aavTov ^V)(^u, koi ireldei' 
opas 0I0VS €;^ei l:iu>novs, oia Se'x'''""' ^*^~ 
fxara (p. 393). The passage in Test, 
xii Pair. Jud. 18 »; (juXapyvpia irpos 
e'ldco'Ka oSrjyci is no real parallel to St 
Paul's language, though at first sight 
it seems to resemble it. For ^rty, 
' seeing that it,' see the note ou Phil, 
iv. 3. 

6, 7. St' a K.T.X.] The received 
text requires correction in two points, 
(i) It inserts the words eVi tovs vtovs 
T^s dneiBeias after tov Qeov. Though 
this insertion has preponderating sup- 
port, yet the words are evidently in- 
terpolated from the parallel passage, 

Ephes. V. 6 8ta ravra yap epxerai t] 
opyfj TOV Qeov eVi tovs vlovs Trjs anet- 
deiai. We are therefore justified in 
rejecting them vnth other authorities, 
few in number but excellent in cha- 
racter. See the detached note on va- 
rious readings. When the sentence is 
thus corrected, the parallelism of St' ols Kat... may be compared with 

Ephes. i. 1 1 ev CO Koi eKKrjp(i)6rip.ev..Jv d> 
KOI vfie'ls...€V (u Koi TTiiTTeva-avTfi eac^pa- 
yicrdrjTe, and ii. 21, 22 ev <o TTaaa [j;] d> Koi vp.els avvoiKodo- 
fie'Lcrde. (2) The vast preponder- 
ance of authority obliges us to substi- 
tute TovTois for avrols. 

6. epxerui] This may refer either 
to the present and continuous dispen- 
sation, or to the future and final judg- 
ment. The pi-eseut epxeaduL is fre- 
quently used to denote the certainty 
of a future event, e.g. Matt. xvii. 11, 
Joh. iv. 21, xiv. 3, whence 6 ip^onevos 
is a designation of the Messiah : see 
Winer § xl. p. 332. 

7. ev ois /c.T.X.] The clause eVt tovs 
vlovs Tr/s diTfidelas having been struck 
out, ev ols nmst necessarily be neuter 
and refer to the same as St' d. Inde- 
pendently of the rejection of the 
clause, this neuter seems more proba- 
ble in itself than the masculine: for 
(i) The expression nepnraTelv ev is 
most commonly used of things, not of 
persons, especially in this and the 
companion epistle : iv. 5, Ephes. ii. 2, 
10, iv. 17, V. 2 ; [2) The Apostle would 
hardly denounce it as a sin in his Co- 
lossian converts that they ' walked 
among the sons of disobedience' ; for 
the Christian, though not of the world, 
is necessarily in the world : comp. i 
Cor. V. 10. The apparent parallel, 
Ephes. ii. 3 iv ols /cut ijp.els iravres dve- 
(TTpa(j)rjp.ev ivore ev toIs emdvp-iais Trjs 

a-apKos rjfxav (where ols seems to be 
masculine), does not hold, because the 
addition iv tuIs im6vp.iats k.t.\. makes 
all the difference. Thus tlie rejection 
of the clause, which was decided by 
textual considerations, is confirmed by 
exegetical reasons. 

Kol vfxeLs] ' ye, like the other heathen' 
(i. 6 Kai iv, but in the next 
verse koi v/xels is rather *ye your- 
selves,' ' ye notwithstanding youi- for- 
mer lives.' 

ore iC^Te k.t.X.] ' When ye lived in 
this atmosphere of sin, when ye had 
not yet died to the world.' 

iv TovTois] ''in these things ' We 
should have expected avrols, but 
Tourotff is substituted as more empha- 
tic and condemnatory : comp. Ephes. 
V. 6 bid TavTa yap epx^rai k.t.\. The 
two expressions t^i/ iv and irepiivaTelv 
iv involve two distinct ideas, denoting 
the condition of their hfe a«d the cha- 
racter of their practice respectively. 
Their conduct was conformable to 
their circumstances. Comp. Gal. v. 25 
el ^(Hp-ev Tvvevp,aTi, TrvevfiaTi Kai arroi- 

14 2 



[III. 9 

opytjv, BvfioVy KUKiaVf (i\aG-(prifiLav, ala-^poXoyiav e'/c 
ToD cTTOiiiaTOs vjmcov ^ jULtj ■yp^evheo'de ek dWtjXov^' direK- 

8, The errors of the past suggest 
the obligations of the present. Thus 
the Apostle returns to the topic with 
which the sentence commenced. But 
the violence of the contrast has broken 
up the grammar of the sentence ; see 
the note on ver. 5. 

TO. TtavTo] ' not only those vices which 
have been specially named before 
(ver. 5), but all of whatever kind.' The 
Apostle accordingly goes on to spe- 
cify sins of a wholly different type 
from those already mentioned, sins 
of uncharitableness, such as anger, 
detraction, malice, and the like. 

opyijv, 6viJ.6v] ' ciiiffer, wrath.^ The 
one denotes a more or less settled 
feeling of hatred, the other a tumul- 
tuous outburst of passion. This dis- 
tinction of the two words was fixed 
chiefly by the definitions of the Stoics : 
Diog. Laert. vii. 114 6 8e 6vix6s earip 
opyrj dpxoi^^vr]. So Auimonius 6vfi6s 
fxev ivTL TrpocTKaipos, opyf] fie noXvx^po- 
vios pLv-qa-iKaKia, Greg. Naz. Carm. 34 
(11. p. 612) dvp.osp.ev ecTTivddpoos Ci<ns 
(ppevos, opyT] fie 6vp6i eppivav. They 
may be represented in Latin by ira 
and furor ; Senec. de Ira ii. 36 ' xVja- 
cem in mortem egit furor, in furorera 
ira,' and Jerome in Ephes. iv. 31 'Fu- 
ror incipieus ira est' : see Trench 
N. T, Syn. § xxxvii, p. 123 sq. On 
other synonynies connected with ^u- 
p6s and opyrj see the note on Ephcs. 
iv. 31. 

KaKiav] 'malice^ or 'malignity,' as 
it may be translated in default of a 
better word. It is not (at least in the 
New Testament) vice generally, but 
the vicious nature which is bent on 
doing harm to others, and is well de- 
fined by Calvin (on Ephcs. iv. 31) ' aui- 
mi pravitas, quae humanitaii et aequi- 
tati est opposita.' This will be evi- 
dent from the connexion in which it 
appears, e.g. Rom. i. 29, Eph. iv. 31, 

Tit. iii. 3. Thus KaKia and Trovrjpla 

(which frequently occur together, e.g. 
I Cor, V. 8) only differ in so far as the 
one denotes rather the vicious dispo- 
sition, the other the active exercise of 
it. The word is carefully investigated 
in Trench A\ T. Syn. § xi. p- 35 sq. 

^XaacpTjpiav] ' evil speaking, rail- 
ing, slandering,' as frequently, e.g. 
Kom.iii. 8, xiv. 16, i Cor. iv. 13 (v. 1.), 
s. 30, Ephes. iv. 31, Tit. iiL 2. The 
word has the same twofold sense, ' evil 
speaking ' and ' blasphemy,' in classi- 
cal writers, which it has in the New 

aiaxpokoyiav] ' foul-mouthed obuse.' 
The word, as used elsewhere, has two 
meanings: (i) 'Filthy-talking,' as de- 
fined in Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 6 (p. 
1 89 sq.), where it is denounced at 
length : comp. Arist. Po^. vii. 1 7, Epict. 
Man. 33, Plut. Mar. 9, and so com- 
monly; {2) ' Abusive language,' as 
e.g. Polyb. viii. 13. 8, xii. 13. 3, xxxi. 
10. 4. If tlie two senses of the word 
had been quite distinct, we might have 
had some difficulty in choosing be- 
tween them here. The former sense 
is suggested by the parallel passage 

Ephes. v. 4 alaxpoTTji Kat pwpoXoyla rj 
evTparreXia; the secoud by the con- 
nexion with ^Xaa-(f)r)pia here. But 
the second sense is derived from the 
first. The word can only mean ' abuse,' 
when the abuse is 'foul-mouthed.' 
And thus we may suppose that both 
ideas, ' filthiuess ' and ' evil-speaking,' 
are included here. 

9. dne Kbvaapepoi ac. r.X.] ' jmtting 
off.' Do these aorist participles de- 
scribe an action coincident with or 
prior to the ^//evfieo-^e ? In other 
words are they part of the command, 
or do they assign the reason for the 
command ] Must they be rendered 
' putting off,' or ' seeing that ye did (at 
your baptism) put off ' ? The former 
seems the more probable interpreta- 
tion ; for ( I ) Though both ideas are 


^VG'djuevoi Tou TraXaLOV avOpocnrov crvv tol^ irpapeaiv 
avTOv, ^°Kat ev^vcafjievoL tov veov, tov dvaKaivovfievou 
eh eTrlyvcoo'iv kut eiKova tov kticuvto^ avTOV " ottov 

found in St Paul, the imperative is the 
more usual; e.g. Piora. xiii. 12 sq. d-rrodoj- 

fieda ovv ra epya tov ctkutovs, evbvcrco- 
fifda 8e Ta oTiXarov (fxiOTOs- ■ ■evdvaaade 
TOV Kvpiov'lrjcrohv XpiaTov, Ephes. vi. 1 1 
eubvcyaaSe ttjv TrauoTrXiav with ver. 14 
CTTrJTe ovv...ev8va-diJL€i'oi. k.t.X., I Thess. 
V. 8 v>i(f)a>iiiu (vSvcrdnevoi. k.t-X. The 

one exception is Gal. iii. 27 oaoi yap 

fls XpLCTTOv ((iaTTTiadrjTf, XpiaTov eVe- 

bva-aade. (2) The 'putting on' in 
the parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 24, is 
imperative, not alBrmative, whether 
we read tvbvaaadai or evbiKracrde. 
(3) The participles here are followed 
immediately by an imperative in the 
context, ver. 12 (vhvaaarBe ovv, where 
the idea seems to be the same. For 
the synchronous aorist participle see 
Winer § xlv. p. 430, St Paul uses 

dnf.Khvcrcnievoi, ivbvadpevoi (not drnK- 

bv6}ievoi, ivbvojievoi), for the same 
reason for which he uses ivbva-aa-Be 
(not evdvea-de), because it is a thing to 
be done once for all. For the double 
compound anenSvea-dai see the notes 
on ii. II, 15. 

naXaibv avdpcoTTOv] as Rom. vi. 6, 
Ephes. iv. 22. With this expression 
compare o e^co, 6 eVca avOpairos, Rom. 
vii. 22, 2 Cor. iv. 16, Ephes. iii. 16 ; 6 
KpvTTTos TTJs Kap8ias avdpcoTTOs, I Pet. 
iii. 4 ') o jiLKpos p.ov avSpcuTTos, * my in- 
significance,' Polycr. in Euseb. H. E. 
V. 24. 

10. TOV viov K.T.X.'] In Ephes. iv, 
24 it IS ivlivcraadai tov koivov avdpco- 
nov. Of the two words veos and kul- 
v6s, the former refers solely to time, 
the other denotes quality also ; the 
one is new as being young, the other 
new as being fresh : the one is op- 
posed to long duration, the other to 
effeteness; see Trench N. T. Syn. 
§ Ix. p. 206. Here the idea which is 
wanting to vios, and which Kaivhs gives 

in the parallel passage, is more than 
supplied by the addition tov dvaKai- 

vovfxevov K.T.X. 

The veos or Kaivbs avdpcoTTos in these 
passages is not Christ Himself, as the 
parallel expression Xpia-Tov (v8v<ra- 
a-dai might suggest, and as it is actu- 
ally used in Ign. Ephes. 20 els tov km- 
v6v dvdpcoTTOv 'lijaovv XptaTov, but the 
regenerate man formed after Christ. 
The idea here is the same as in koiv^ 
KTio-tf, 2 Cor. V. 17, Gal. vi. 15: comp. 
Rom. vi. 4 KOLvorr]! C<^rjs, Barnab. 16 
eyevofieBa Kaivoi, TvdXiv i^ ap)(fjs kti^o- 

TOV dvaKaivoviievov] ^ which is ever 
being renewed.' The force of the pre- 
sent tense is explained by 2 Cor. iv. 

160 eV(B rjixaiv [avd puiiros] dvuKaivovTat 

i]p.epa Kal jy/ie'pa. Compare also the 
use of the tenses in the parallel pas- 
sage, Ephes. iv. 22 sq. aTrodiO-dai, dva- 
veoiiadai, evdva-acrdai. For the op- 
posite see Ephes. iv. 22 tov rraXaiov 
avBpanov tov (f) deipofMevov k.t.X. 

fls fTTiyvcoaLv] ' unto i^erfect know- 
ledge^ the true knowledge in Christ, 
as opposed to the false knowledge of 
the heretical teachers. For the im- 
plied contrast see above, pp. 44, 97 sq. 
(comp. the notes on i. 9, ii. 3), and for 
the word eVt-yi/oxriy the note on i. 9. 
The words here are to be connected 
closely with dvaKaivovfievov : comp. 
Heb. vi. 6 ttoXlv dvaKaivi^nv els fxe- 

Kar (Ikovu k.t.X.] The reference is 
to Gen. i. 26 /cai eljrev 6 Geoy, Hoiij- 
crajxev dvOpconov kut elKoua rjjieTepav 
K.T.X. ; comp. ver. 28 kut' ehova Qeov 
i-rrotTjcrev avrdv. See also EpheS. iv. 24 
TOV Kaivuv ai'dponTTOV TOV KaTO. Qeov kti- 

rrdivTa. This reference however does 
not imply an identity of the creation 
here mentioned vrith the creation of 
Genesis, but only an analogy between 




ovK evL '''EWnv Kai 'lofSaiOs, TrepiTOfjLri Kal aKpof^vcrria, 

the two. The spiritual man in each 
believer's heart, like the primal man 
in the begiuniuor of the world, was 
created after God's image. The Kaivrj 
KTia-ii in this respect resembles the 
dpxaia KTiats. The pronoun avrov 
cannot be referred to anything else 
but the veos ai^dpoiTTos, the regene- 
rate man ; and the aorist KTia-avros 
(compare Knadevra in the parallel 
passage Ephes. iv. 24) refers to the 
time of this dvayevvrjcn^ in Christ. 
See Barnab. 6 dvaKaivlaas j;/xar iv 
Tjj dcfiecrei twv dfxapTimv eTroirjcrev TJfxas 
aWov TV7rov...(o(Tav 81] avanXarr aov- 

Tos avTov i], after which Gen. i. 26 
is quoted. The new birth was a re- 
creation in God's image; the subse- 
quent life must be a deepening of this 
image thus stamped upon the man. 

The allusion to Genesis therefore 
requires us to understand rov Kvlaav- 
Tos of God, and not of Christ, as it is 
taken by St Chrysostom and others ; 
and this seems to be demanded also 
by the common use of 6 Kriaas. But 
if Christ is not 6 KTicras, may He not be 
intended by tJie eiKav toO KTia-avros ? 
In favour of this interpretation it may 
be urged (i) That Christ elsewhere is 
called the ehdiv of God, i. 15,2 Cor. 
iv. 4; (2) That the Alexandrian school 
interpreted the term in Gen. i. 26 as 
denoting the Logos; thus Philo de 
Mund. Op. 6 (i. p. 5 m) to apx^Tvirov 
napaStiyp.a, Idea Tciv l8f(ov o Qeov Xo- 

yos (comp. ib. §§ 7, 23, 24, 48)^, Fragm. 

II. p. 625 M BvrjTov yap ovdev aTTeiKovia-- 
OrjvaL ivpos TOP dvcoTaro) Koi Trartpa 
rav oXcov fhvvaro, dXka irpos rov BevTf- 
pov Qeov OS icTTiv fKeivov Xoyos k.t.X. 
Leg. Alleg. i. 31, 32 (i. p. 106 sq.). 
Hence Philo speaks of the first man 
as eiKotv eiKovoi {de Mund. Op. 6), and 
as TrayKfiXou napa8eiyp.aTos TrayKoXov 
nifir]p.a (ib. § 48). A pregnant mean- 
ing is thus given to Kara, and Kar' et- 
Kova is rendered ' after the fashion (or 
pattern) of the Image.' But this in- 
terpretation seems very improbable in 

St Paul ; for (i) In the parallel pas- 
sage Ephes. iv. 24 the expression is 
simply Kara Qeov, which may be re- 
garded as equivalent to /car' eUova rov 
KTiaavTos here ; (2) The Alexandrian 
explanation of Gen. i. 26 just quoted 
is very closely allied to the Platonic 
doctrine of ideas (for the elKav, so in- 
terpreted, is the archetype or ideal 
pattern of the sensible world), and 
thus it lies outside the range of those 
conceptions which specially recom- 
mended the Alexandrian terminology 
of the Logos to the Apostles, as a fit 
vehicle for communicating the truths 
of Christianity. 

II. onov] i.e. 'in this regenerate 
life, in this spiritual region into which 
the believer is transferred in Christ.' 

OVK evi] 'Not only does the dis- 
tinction not exist, but it cannot exist.' 
It is a mundane distinction, and there- 
fore it has disappeared. For the 
sense of evi, negativing not merely the 
fact, but the possibility, see the note 
on Gal. iii. 28. 

"YXXr^v K.T.X.'] Comparing the enume- 
ration here with the parallel passage 
Gal. iii. 28, we mark tliis diflei-ence. 
In Galatians the abolition of all dis- 
tinctions is stated in the broadest 
Avay by the selection of three typical 
instances; religious prerogative ('lov- 

ba1os,"EXXr]v), social caste (SovXof, iXev- 

6fpoi), natural sex {apcrev, drjXv). Here 
on the other hand the examples are 
chosen with special reference to the 
immediate circumstances of the Co- 
lossian Cliurch. (i) The Judaism of 
the Colossian heretics is met by'EXXjjr' 
KOI 'louSatos, and as it manifested it- 
self especially in enforcing circumci- 
sion, this is further emphasized by 
TTepiTop.fl Ka\ aKpo^vcTTia (see above, 
p. 71). (2) Their Gnosticism again is 
met by ^^dp^apoi, ^kv6t]s. They laid 
special stress on intelligence, penetra- 
tion, gnosis. The Apostle offers the 
full privileges of the Gospel to barba- 
rians and even barbarians of the low- 




^apl3apo9, '^Kudii's, §oi/A.os, eXevdepos, dWa tcc TrdvTa 

ciSt type (see p. 97 sq.)- In Rom. i. 14 
the division "EXXr/o-tV re kui ^ap^dpois 
is almost synonymous with (To(f}o'is 
re KoX dvoi]Tois. (3) Special cir- 
cumstances, connected with an emi- 
nent member of the Church of Colos- 
sfe, had directed his attention at this 
moment to the relation of masters and 
slaves. Hence he cannot leave the 
subject without adding 8ov\oi, eXev- 
6epos, though this has no special bear- 
ing on the Colos.^ian heresy. See 
above, p. 33, and the note on iii. 22, 
together with the introduction to the 
Epistle to Philemon. 

irepLTOfii] k.tX] Enforcing and ex- 
tending the lesson of the previous 
clause. This abolition of distinctions 
applies to religious privilege, not only 
as inherited by birth (^EXXrjv koX 'Iou- 
Salos), but also as assumed by adop- 
tion {TTepiTOfifj Koi aKpo^vcTTLa). If it is 
no advantage to be born a Jew, it is 
none to become as a Jew; comp. i Cor. 
Tii. 19, Gal. V. 6, vi. 15. 

^dpjBapos] To the Jew the whole 
world was divided into 'lovSaloi and 
*EXXrives, the privileged and unprivi- 
leged portions of mankind, religious 
prerogative being taken as the line of 
demarcation (see notes Gal. ii. 3). 
To the Greek and Roman it was 
similarly divided into "EXXrjves and 
^ap^apoi, again the privileged and 
unprivileged portion of the human 
race, civiUsatiou and culture being 
now the criterion of distinction. 
Thus from the one point of view the 
"EXXjji/ is contrasted disadvantage- 
ously with the 'lovSaToj, while from 
the other he is contrasted advantage- 
ously with the ^apfiapos. Both dis- 
tinctions are equally antagonistic to 
the Spirit of the Gospel. The Apostle 
declares both alike null and void in 
Christ. The twofold character of the 
Colossian heresy enables him to strike 
at these two opposite forms of error 
with one blow. 

The word ^dp^apos properly deno- 

ted one who spoke an inarticulate, 
stammering, unintelligible language; 
see Max Miiller Lectures on the Sci- 
ence of Language ist ser. p. 81 sq., 
114 sq., Farrar Families of Speech 
p. 21 : comp. I Cor. xiv. 11. Hence 
it was adopted by Greek exclusiveness 
and pride to stigmatize the rest of 
mankind, a feeling embodied in the 
proverb ttS? /a?) 'EXXj^j/ /3dpj3apos (Ser- 
vius on Verg. Aen. ii. 504) ; comp. 

Plato Polit. 262 E TO fiev 'EXX-qviKov 
(OS ev aiTo TTavTcov c(paipovvTes ;^ft)pij, 
crvp/iracn 8e rois aXXois yiveai.v.,.fiap- 
^apov pia KXijcrei Trpoa-eiTrovres avro 
K.T.X., Dionys. Hal. Ehet. xi. 5 SiTrXovv 
8e TO edvos, "EXXrjv ^ ^dp^apos k.t.X. 
So Philo Vit. Moys. ii. 5 (11. p. 138) 
speaks of to r\p.i(TV Tp.r\p.a tov dvdpco- 

TTa>v jivovs, TO (iap^apiKov, as Opposed 
to TO 'EXXijvikov. It is not necessary 
to suppose that they adopted it from 
the Egyptians, who seem to have call- 
ed non-Egyptian peoples herher (see 
Sir G. Wilkinson in Rawlinson's He- 
rod, ii. 158); for the onomatopoeia will 
explain its origin independently, Stra- 
bo xiv. 2. 28 (p. 662) be to ^dp- 
^apov KaT dpxas eKTTe(jia)vrja6aL ourws 
KaT ovop.aToivoiiav eVi Tav bvaeKCpopais 
Koi (TKAripas Koi Tpa;^ecas XaXovvrav, as 
TO ^aTTapi^eiu k.t.X. The Latins, 
adopting the Greek culture, adopted 
the Greek distinction also, e.g. Cic. de 
Fin. ii. 15 'Non solum Graecia et Ita- 
lia, sed etiam omnis barbaria' : and 
accordingly Dionysius, Ant. Rom. i.69, 
classes the Romans with the Greeks 
as distinguished from the ' barbarians' 
— this twofold division of the human 
race being taken for granted as abso- 
lute and final. So too in v. 8, having 
mentioned the Romans, he goes on to 
speak of 01 aXXoi "EXXr^ves. The older 
Roman poets however, writing from a 
Greek point of view, (more than half 
in irony) speak of themselves as har- 
hari and of their country as barbaria; 
e.g. Plant. Mil. Glor. ii. 2. 58 'poetae 
barbaro' (of Naevius), Asin. Frol. 11. 



[III. 12 

Kai eV Tracnv ^pLorro'S. ^'^e.vZvo'acrde ovv, ws e/cAefcro/ 

'Maccus vortit barbare,' Poen. iii. 2. 
2 1 ' in barbaria boves.' 

In this classification the Jews ne- 
cessarily ranked as ' barbarians ' ; Orig. 
c. Gels. i. 2. At times Philo seems 
tacitly to accept this designation {Vlt. 
Moys. 1. c); but elsewhere he resents 
it, Leg. ad Gal.'^i (11. p. 578) vtto <ppo- 

vrjfxaTos, cos fJiev evioi rwv SiajiaWovTcov 
t'lnoiev av, ^apl3apiKov, cos S' e;)^ei to 
d\r]66S, eXevdepiov Koi evytvovs. Ou 
the other hand the Christian Apolo- 
gists with a true instinct glory in the 
'barbarous' origin of their religion : 
Justin Ajyol. L 5 (p. 56 a) dXka Km iv 
^apjBapoisvTr' avTov tov Aoyov nopcpcudev- 
Tos Koi a.v6pu>Tiov yevofxevov, ib. § 46 (p. 
83 d) eV ^apfiapois fie 'A^paap, k.t.X., 
Tatian. ad Graec. 29 ypacpais nalv 
ivTVxelv ^ap^apLKols, ib. 3^ '''^*' ^^ 
(MiavCT^i") Tratr^s ^ap^apov ao4)Las ap- 
X^yov, ib. 35 ''"^^ '^f'^' W^? ^apj3apov 
^iKoaocfyias. By glorying in the name 
they gave a practical comment on the 
Apostle's declaration that the distinc- 
tion of Greek and barbarian was 
abolished in Christ. In a similar spirit 
Clem. Alex. Strom, i. 16 (p. 361) en- 
deavom's to prove that ov p.6vov (piXo- 
ao(pias dWa koi Tvdcrrjs crx^^ov rex'^H^ 
evperai /3(!p/3apot. 

'Not till that word bardarian' 
writes Prof. Max Miiller (1. c. p. 118), 
' was struck out of the dictionary of 
mankind and replaced by brother, not 
till the right of all nations of the world 
to be classed as members of one genus 
or kind was recognised, can we look 
even for the first beginnings of our 
science. This change was etfected by 
Christianity... Humanity \s a word 
which you look for in vain in Plato or 
Aristotle; the idea of mankind as one 
family, as the chikben of one God, is 
an idea of Christian gi-owth : and the 
science of mankind, and of the lan- 
guages of mankind, is a science which, 
without Christianity, would never have 
sprung into life. When people had 
been taught to look upon all men as 

brethren, then and then only, did the 
variety of human speech present itself 
as a problem that called for a solution 
in the eyes of thoughtful observers : 
and I therefore date the real begin- 
ning of the science of language from 
the first day of Pentecost... The com- 
mon origin of mankind, the difi'erences 
of race and language, the susceptibi- 
lity of all nations of the highest men- 
tal culture, these become, in the new 
world in which we live, problems of 
scientific, because of more than scien- 
tific interest.' St Paul was the great 
exponent of the fundamental principle 
in the Christian Church which was 
s;>-mbolized on the day of Pentecost, 
when he declared, as here, that in 
Christ there is neither "EXXj^i/ nor 
^ap^apos, or as in Rom. i. 14 that he 
himself was a debtor equally "EXXTjo-tV 

re Koi ^api3dpois. 

The only other passage in the New 
Testament (besides those quoted) in 
which ^dp^apos occurs is Acts xxviii. 
2, 4, where it is used of the people of 
Melita. If this Melita be Malta, they 
would be of Phoenician descent. 

2Kvdrjs\ The lowest type of barba- 
rian. There is the same collocation 
of words in Dionys. Halic. Rhet. xi. 
5, 6 iraTrjp, ^dp^apos, "SKvdr]!, veoi, 

Aesch. c. Ctes. 172 2Kidr]s, ^dp^apos, 
fkXrjvi^cov TTj c})a)V7J (of Demosthenes). 
The savageness of the Scythians was 
proverbial. The earlier Greek writers 
indeed, to whom omwe ignotum was 
2)ro magnijico, had frequently spoken 
of them otherwise (see Strabo vii. 3. 
7 sq-)P- 300 sq.). Aeschylus for instance 
called them evvop.01 ^Kvdai, Fragm. 
189 (comp. Eum. 703). Like the 
other Hyperboreans, they were a 
simple, righteous people, living be- 
yond the vices and the miseries 
of civilisation. But the common 
estimate was far different, and pro- 
bably far more true: e.g. 3 Mace. 

vii. 5 t>6p.ov '2Kv6a>v dypicoTfpav...cop.6- 

rrjra (comp. 2 Macc. iv. 47), Joseph. 

III. 12] 



Tou QeoO, ayiOL ^kul^ riyaTrrifjievoL, G-Tr\ay)(ya OLKTipiuLou, 

C. Ap. ii. 37 ^Kv6ai...^paxy twv Bqpicdv 

8ia({)(povTei, I'bilo Leff. ad Gal. 2 

(lI. p. 547} 'SapiJ.aTuiv yevrj Kal ^Kvdav, 
dnep ovx fjTTOv e'^f/yptcorai twv Teppavi- 
Kuif, Tertull. adv. JIarc. i. i ' Scytha 
tetrior,' Orig. c. Cels. i. i 'S.kvBoiv, koX 
eiTi'SKvdcoi' dael^iaTepov. Ill Vit.Moys. 

ii. 4 (i. p. 137) Pliilo seems to place 
the Egyptians and the Scythians at the 
two extremes in the scale of barbarian 
nations. The passages given in Wet- 
stein from classical writers are hardly 
less strong in the same direction. 
Anacharsis the Scythian is said to have 
retorted ijioi be iravra EAX/^i/e? (jKvd'i- 
^cvaiv, Clem. Strom. 1. 16 (p. 364). 

The Jews had a special reason for 
their unfavourable estimate of the 
Scythians. In the reign of Josiah 
hoi-des of these northern barbarians 
had deluged Palestine and a great 
part of Western Asia (Herod, i. 103 
— 106). The incident indeed is passed 
over in silence in the historical books ; 
but the terror insi^ired by these in- 
vaders has found expression in the 
prophets (Ezek. xxviii, xxxix, Jer. i. 
13 sq., vi. I sq.), and they left behind 
them a memorial in the Greek name 
of Beth-shean, '2kv6u)v ttoXu (Judith iii. 
10, 2 Mace. xii. 29 : comp. Judges 1. 
27 Lxx) or ^Kvdonokis, which seems to 
have been derived from a settlement 
on this occasion (Plin. N. H. v. 16; 
see Ewald Gesch. iii. p. 689 sq., Grove 
s.v. Scythopolis in Smith's Bibl.Dict.). 

Hence Justin, Dial. § 28 (p. 246 a), 
describing the largeness of the new 
dispensation, says kuv ^Kvdrjs ^ ns rj 
Qepcrris, e;(ei be rfju tov Qeov yvaxriv 
Kai TOV XpttrroD avrov koi (j^vXdcraet 
TO alcovta 8iKaia...(})iXos eori rw 0ec5, 
where he singles out two different but 
equally low types of barbarians, the 
Scythians being notorious for their 
ferocity, the Persians for their licen- 
tiousness (Clem. Alex. Paed. i. 7, 
p. 131, Strom, iii. 2, p. 515, and the 
Apologists generally). So too the 
Pseudo-Lucian, Philopatris 17, sati- 

rising Christianity, KP. roi'^e eiTTf, el /cat 
ra T(ov EkvOuiv iv t(o ovpavu) ey^apar- 
Tovcri. TP. -navTa, el rv^oi ye xpijcrros 
Koi ev edveai. From a misconception 
of this passage in the Colossians, 
heresiologers distinguished four main 
forms of heresy in the pre-Christian 
world, /3ap/3api(r/J.of, (TKvdicrpos, eWrj- 
vicrp.6s, lov8a'i(Tp.6s ; SO Epiphan. Epist. 
ad Acac. 2 cra0c5j yap Trepl tovtcov rau 
reacrapcou alpecreccv o aTTnaToXos eTTire- 
ficov e(j)r], F,v yap Xpia-TO) 'ItjctoD ov ^ap- 
iSapos, ov 2Kv6r]s, ovx "E;\Aj;i', ovk 'lov- 
dalos, aXXa KaLvrj ktIctls : comp. TIaer, 
i. 4, 7 sq., I. pp. 5, 8 sq., [Anaceph. 11. 
pp. 127, 129 sq. 

TO. iravra K.r.X.] ' Christ is all 
things and in all things! Christ 
has dispossessed and obliterated all 
distinctions of religious prerogative 
and intellectual preeminence and so- 
cial caste ; Christ has substituted 
Himself for all these ; Christ occupies 
the whole sphere of human life and 
permeates all its developments : comp. 
Ephes. i. 23 rov ra iravTa iv Tratjiv ttKt]- 
povp-evov. For TO. iravra, which is 
stronger than ol Trairey, see Gal. iii. 
22 (TvveKkei(Tev /) ypacjirj ra iravra vno 
apapriav with the note. In this pas- 
sage iv nacriv is probably neuter, as 
in 2 Cor. xi. 6, Phil. iv. 12, i Tim. iii. 
II, 2 Tim. ii. 7, iv. 5, Ephes. iv. 6, vL 

In the parallel passage Gal. iii. 28 
the corresponding clause is navres 
vp,eli els iare iv Xpiarm ^Irja-ov. The 
inversion here accords with a chief 
motive of the epistle, which is to as- 
sert the absolute and universal supre- 
macy of Christ ; comp. i. 17 sq., ii. 
10 sq., 19. The two parts of the anti- 
thesis are combined in our Lord's 
saying, Joh. xiv. 20 vpe^s iv ijiol, Kayat 
iv vpiv. 

12 — 15. ' Therefore, as the elect of 
God, as a people consecrated to His 
service and specially endowed with 
His love, array yourselves in hearts of 
compassion, in kindliness and hurai- 



[III. 12 

■)(^pf]a'TOTt]Ta, Ta7reLvo(J)p6crvvr,v J irpavTriTa^ fxaKpodv- 

lity, in a gentle and yielding spirit. 
Bear with one another, forgive freely 
among yourselves. As your Master 
forgave you His servants, so ought ye 
to forgive your fellow-servants. And 
over all these robe yourselves in love; 
for this is the garment which binds 
together all the graces of perfection. 
And let the one supreme iimpire in 
your hearts, the one referee amidst 
all your difficulties, be the peace of 
Christ, which is the destined goal of 
your Christian calling, in which is 
realised the unity belonging to mem- 
bers of one body. Lastly of all ; show 
your gratitude by your thanksgiving.' 

12. ivbv(Taa6e ovv] 'Pat on there- 
fore,'' as men to whom Clirist has be- 
come all in all. The incidental men- 
tion of Christ as superseding all other 
relations gives occasion to this argu- 
mentative ovu : comp. iii. i, 5. 

(OS €K\eKTo\ Tov BfoS] ' Gs clcct ones 
of God.' Comp. Rom. viii. 3, Tit. i. i . 
J n the Gospels k\t]toI. and fKXeKroi are 
distinguished as an outer and an in- 
ner circle (Matt. xxii. 14 ttoXXoI yap 
el(TLV kKtjtoi, oXiyoi 8e eKXeKTol), kXtjtoi 

being those summoned to the privi- 
leges of the Gospel and tKXeKT-oi those 
appointed to final salvation (Matt. 
xxiv. 22, 24, 31, Mark xiii. 20, 22, 27, 
Luke xviii. 7). But in St Paul no 
such distinction can be traced. With 
him the two terms seem to be coex- 
tensive, as two aspects of the same pro- 
cess, KXrjToi having special reference to 
the goal and e'/cXf/croi to the starting- 
point. The same persons are ' called ' 
to Christ, and ' chosen out ' from the 
world. Thus in i Thess. i. 4 elSores 
Tr]v fKkoyTfu vfjLcov K.T.X. thc word clearly 
denotes election to Church-member- 
ship. Thus also in 2 Tim. ii. 10, where 
St Paul says that he endures all things 
8ia Tovs eKXcKTovs, adding Iva Koi avTol 
(rcnTTj^ias Tvx^cocriv K.r.X.,the uncertainty 
implied in these last words clearly 
shows that election to final salvation 
is not meant. In the same sense he 

speaks of an individual Christian as 
'elect,' Rom. xvi. 13. And again in 

I Cor. i. 26, 27 iSXeVere tt/u K\rj(riv 
Vficov...Ta jJLapa tov Koap-ov i^eki^aro, 
the words appear as synonymes. The 
same is also the usage of St Peter. 
Thus in an opening salutation he ad- 
di-esses whole Christian communities 
as €K\iKrni (i Pet. i. I ; comp. v. 13 ^ 
(TvveKXeKTT] iv Ba^vKatvi, i.e. probably 
eKKk-qaia), as St Paul under similar 
circumstances ^Rom. i. 6, 7, i Cor. 
i. 2) designates them kKtitoI ; and in 
another passage (2 Pet. i. 10) he ap- 
peals to his readers to make their 
K\rj(TLs and sKKoy-q sure. The use of 
eKktuTos in 2 Joii. i, 13, is apparently 
the same; and in Apoc. xvii. 14 ol 
fier avTov KXrjroi Koi €K\eKTo\ koi tti- 

(TTOL this is also the case, as we may 
infer from the addition of Trio-rot, which 
points to those who have been true to 
their ' calUng and election.' Thus the 
Gospels stand alone in this respect. 
In foct efcXoy?; denotes election by 
God not only to final salvation, but to 
any special privilege or work, whe- 
ther it be (i) Church-membership, as 
in the passages cited from the epistles ; 
or (2) The work of preaching, as when 
St Paul (Acts ix. 1 5) is called aKevos 
eKXoyrjs, the object of the 'election' 
being defined in the words following, 
TOV ^aaracrai to ovofia fiov fvcomov 
[twi/] edvav re Koi ^aaiKeoiv k.t.X. ; or 

(3) The Messiahship, i Pet. ii. 4, 6; or 

(4) The fatherhood of the chosen 
people, as in the case of Isaac and Ja- 
cob, Rom, ix. II ; or (5) The faithful 
remnant under the theocracy, Rom. 
xi. 5, 7, 28. This last application pre- 
sents the closest analogy to the idea 
of final salvation : but even here St 
Paul treats kXtjo-is and e'/cXoy?; as co- 
extensive, Rom. xi. 28, 29 icaTa 8e ttjv 
fK\oyr]p ayanrjTol 8ia tovs waTepas' 
a^era/ieXryra yap Ta ^aplcrptaTa ku'l 1) 
KXijais TOV Oeov. 

ayioi K.r.X.] These are not to be 
taken as vocatives, but as predicates 

III. i3l 



fAaw '^ dve-)(^o}JieuoL d\\ri\wi/y Kai -x^apL^ofxevoi eavTohj 

further defining the meaning of eVXeK- 
Toi. All the three terms €«Xe/crot, 
ayioi, j^yanrjuevoi, are transferred 
from the Old Covenant to the New, 
from the Israel after the flesh to the 
Israel after the Spirit. For the two 
former comp. i Pet. ii. 9 yevos eVXe/croi' 
...edvos ayiov; and for the sense of 
ayioi, ' tlie consecrated people of God,' 
see the note on Phil. i. i. For the 

third word, ^yanrjfxevoi, 866 Is. V. I 
"Aato t.rj ra ■qyaTrrjfi^voi /c.r.X., Hos. 
il. 25 rrjv ovK rjymrrj fiiVTjv rjyaTrrj p,firr]v 

(as quoted in Rom. ix. 25). In the 
New Testament it seems to be used 
always of the objects of God's love ; 

e.g. I Thess. i. 4 tlBorfs, d8eX(j)o\ rjya- 
iTTjfievoi iiTTo Qeov, ttjv eKKoyr/v vjicov, 
2 Thess. ii. 13 adiKcpol T^ya-mjixevoi viro 
Kvpiov (comp. Jude l); and so proba- 
bly Rev. XX. 9 T'?!' TToXlV TTjU 1]yaTTTjfie- 

vrjv. For the connexion of God's elec- 
tion and God's love see Rom. xi. 28 
(quoted above), i Thess. 1. c. The xal 
is omitted in one or two excellent 
copies (though it has the great pre- 
ponderance of authorities in its fa- 
vour), and it is impossible not to feel 
how much the sentence gains in force 
by the omission, iKkeKroi Qeov, ayioi, 
ijyawrjfjLevoi ; comp. I Pet. il 6. 

aTrXay^va olKTipjj.ov'l ' a heart of 
pity.' For the meaning of cnvkdyxva 
see the note on Phil. i. 8, and for the 
whole expression comp. a-nkafyxv"- ^^- 
oufLukei. 78, Test. xiiPatr. Zab. 7, 8. 

XprjcTTo^TjTa K.T.X.j The two words 
XprjaroT-qs and TairetvocfipocrvvT], ' kind- 
liness ' and 'humility,' describe the 
Christian temper of mind generally, 
and this in two aspects, as it aflfects 
either (i) our relation to others (xp'/cr- 
Torrjs), or (2) our estimate of self {ra- 
neivo(fipo(Tiivr}). For xp'70"tot'7? see the 
note on Gal. v. 22 : for Taireivocppocrvpr], 
the note on Phil. ii. 3, 

irpavTrjTa (c.t.X.] These next two 
words, Trpavrrjs and p.aKpo6vp.ia, de- 
note the exercise of the Christian 
temper in its outward bearing to- 

wards others. They are best distin- 
guished by their opposites. ■npavrrjs 
is opposed to ' rudeness, harshness,' 
aypioTTis (Plato Symp. 197 d), xa^"ro- 
T-qs (Arist. H.A. ix. i); p.uKpo6vp,ia to 
' resentment, revenge, wrath,' opy-q 
(Prov.xvi. 32), o^vxoXla (Herm. Mand. 
V. [, 2). For the meaning of p.aKpo- 
dv/xia see above, on i, 1 1 ; for the form 
of T7pavT7]s {TvpaoTTjs), on Gal. V. 23. 
The words are discussed in Trench 
N. T. Syn. § xUi. p. 140 sq., § xliii. 
p. 145 sq., § liii. p. 184 sq. They ap- 
pear in connexion Ephes. iv. 2, Ign. 

PohjC. 6 \x.aKpo6vy.r](jaTe ovv /xer' aXX?;- 
\<jiv fv npavTrjTi. 

13. dXkijXcov, eavTo'is] The pro- 
noun is varied, as in Ephes. iv. 32 
yivecrde eU dWriXovs ;(pr;o-roi'...;^apt- 
^Qfxfvoi eavTols k.t.X., I Pet. iv. 8 — 10 
TTjv eis eavToiis dyaTvrjv (ktsv^ exovres 
...(f)iX6^€voi els dXXi]Xovs...fls iav- 
Tovs avTo [TO ;^apicr/xa] diaicovovvres. 
The reciprocal iavrav differs from the 
reciprocal dXXriXav in emphasizing the 
idea of corporate unity ; hence it is 
more approijriate here (comp. Ephes. 
iv. 2, 32) with xapt^oMe^ot than with 
dvfxofievot : comp. Xen. 3fem. iii. 5. 16 
avrl /lev rov avvepyelv euvToli to. ctvim- 
(jifpoPTa, emjpea^ovaiv dXXijXois, Koi 
(l)6ovoiiaiv iavTols fiaXXov fj rots aX- 
Xois dvdpcoTrois...Kal Trpoaipovvrai p.dX- 
Xov oi/Tco Kipbalveiv ott' dXXrjXoiiv rj 
(TvvaxpeXovvTes avrovs, where the pro- 
priety of the two words in their re- 
spective places wiU be evident : and 

ib. ii. 7' 12 dvrl v(popa>ixev(ov iavras 

/ySews dXXT]Xas eojpcov, where the vari- 
ation is more subtle but not less ap- 
propriate. For instances of this use of 
iavTau see Bleek Hebrderbrief iii. 13 
(p. 453 sq.), Kiihner Griech. Gramm. 
§455 (II- P- 497 sq.). 

xapiCop.ivoi~\ i.e. ' forgiving'; see the 
note on ii. 13. An a fortiori argu- 
ment lurks under the use of kavrols 
(rather than dXXriXois) : if Christ for- 
gave them, much more should they 
forgive tlietnselces. 



[III. 14 

iav Tis TTjOos Tiva e^^ juojucpriu' Kadco^ Kal 6 KiyjOtos 

14 .% 

€)(^api(raTO vjulli^, ovt(jo<s Kat vjueis' ^eTri Tracnv ce tovtol<5 


fio)i(f)']v] 'a complaint.' As /n//i- 
(peadai is ' to ^nd fault with,' referring 
most commonly to errors of omission, 
so fiofKf)!] here is regarded as a debt, 
which needs to be remitted. The 
rendering of the A. V. ' a quarrel ' 
(= querela) is only wrong as being an 
archaism. The phrase fxofKJi^v '^x^i-v 
occurs several times in classical Greek, 
but generally in poetry: e.g. Eur. 
Orest. 1069, Arist. Pax 664. 

Ka6a>s Koi Af.r.X.] This must not be 
connected with the preceding words, 
but treated as an independent sen- 
tence, the Kadms Kai being answered 
by the ovras Kai. For the presence of 
Kai in both clauses of the comparison 
see the note on i. 6. The phenomenon 
is common in the best classical writers, 
e.g. Xen. Mem. i. 6. 3 (Sa-rrfp Ka\ Ta>v 

aWcov fpycov ol fiiSacrKaXot...oura) Kal 

av K.T.X. ; see the references in Hein- 
dorf on Plato Phaedo 64 c. Sophist. 
217 B, and Kiihner Griech. Gramm. 

§ 524 (II. p. 799)- 

o Kvpios] This reading, which is 
better supported than 6 Xpiaros, is 
also more expressive. It recalls more 
directly the lesson of the parable 
which enforces the duty of fellow- 
servant tu fellow-servant; Matt, xviii. 
27 aTv\ay\via6€\s Se d Kvpios tov 
8ov}>.ov eKeivov aTveXvcrev avTov koi to 
ddueiov dcjifiKeu avTW k.t.\.: COmp. bclow 
iv. I eiSoref on Ka\ vpels ex^'''^ Kvpiov 
fvovpavco. The readingXptoTor perhaps 
comes from the parallel passage Ephes. 

IV. 32 X"P^Cop-fVot. eavTois, Kadtjos Kai 6 

Qeoi€V Xpiara exapicraro T^plv (or vpiv). 

ovTCOi Ka\ I'/ieis] SC. ;!^apiXeo"^e eav- 


14. en\ irda-iv'] ' Over and ahove all 
these^ comp. Luke iii. 20 TrpoaedrjKev 
Kai TovTo eVi Trdaiv. In Luke svi. 26, 
Ephes. vi. 16, the correct reading is 
probably eV ndaiv. Love is the outer 
garment which holds the others in 
their places. 

TTjV ayaTTrjv] SC iv8vcraa-6e, from Vcr. 

o]' which ihinfj,^ i.e. 'love'; comp. 
Ephes. V. 5 TT\eov(KTT]s, o icTTiv eiSwXo- 
\dTpr]i, Ign. Rom. 7 aprov Oeov de\co, 
eariv aap^ Xpicrrov, Magn. lO pera- 
^aXeade (Is veav C^prjv 6 eariv 'irjaovi 
Xptcrrdf, Trail. 8 dvaKTTiaaa'Bf eavTovs 
iv Triarei o eariv acip^ rov Kvpiov. 
Though there are various readings in 
the passages of the Ignatian Epistles, 
the o seems to be generally right. 
These instances will show that o may 
be referred to ttji/ dydTTr]v alone. O- 
therwise we might suppose the ante- 
cedent to be TO evdvaaadai ttjv dydnrjv, 
but this hardly suits the sense. The 
common reading ^tis is obviously a 
scribe's correction. 

avvSeapos k.t.X.] ' the honcl of per- 
fection,' i. e. the power, which unites 
and holds together all those graces 
and virtues, which together make up 
perfection. UdvTa eKflva, says Chry- 
SOStom, avTTj a~v(T<j)iyyfi,' onep av eirrrjs 
ayadov, Tavrrjs dnov(TT}s oiiSev iaTiv 
dXka diappel : comp. Clem. Rom. 49 

TOV deapuv ttjs dydnrji tov Oeov Tis 
bvvaTai i^rjyi^aaadai, ; Thus the Pytha- 
goreans (Simplic. in Epictct. p. 208 a) 
Trepicracos twv aXkav dperav ttjv cfyiXiav 
fTipcov Koi (Tvv8ea-pov avTTjV naau>v t(ov 

dpeTwv eXeyov. So too Thcmist. Oral. 
i. (p. 5 c) /3aa-iXi(ci) (dperi)) napa ras 
liXXas fls r]v ^vvdoiivTai Kal ai Xonrai, 
aanep fis piav Kopvcfirjv dvrjppevai. 

The word will take a genitive either 
of the object bound or of the binding 
force: e.g. Plato Pol it. 310 a tovtov 
Oeiorepov fivai tov ^vvdecrpov apeTrjs 
pepcov cfjvcrecus dvopoicov Kai (tti Tavavria 
cpepopevcov, where the dperrj ^wSfl and 
the pepr] ({)vcrfoos ^vvbeirai. We have 

an instance of the one genitive (the 
objective) here, of the other (the sub- 
jective) in Ephes. iv. 3 eVrw awdea-pa 
T^s flpi]vr]s (see the note there). 
Another exjilanation makes a-vvdea- 

III. 15] 



Trjv dyaTTYiVf b icmv avi/decjuo^ Tf]<s TeXeiortjTO^. ^^Kal 
f) elpr]vr] tou \pi(rToG (^pa^eveTio ev TaTs Kap^iais vpiwv, 
el's f]U Kai iK\r]6r]T6 ev evl crcofiaTL. Kai ev)(^cipL<TTOL 

fios — a-vvdecTLs here, 'the bundle, the 
totality,' as e.g. Herodian. iv. 12 jrav- 

ra Tov (Tvv8eaiJ.ovTcov eKicrroXcou (comp. 
Igll. Trail. 3 a-vi'Sea-fxoi' aTToarokaiv) ; 
but this unusual metaphor is highly 
improbable and inappropriate here, 
not to mention that we should expect 
the definite article 6 o-iJi'Seo-^os' in this 
case. With either interpretation, 
the function assigned to dyaTr-q here 
is the same as when it is declared to 
be TTXi^payfia vofiov, Rom. xiii. 10 (comp. 
Gal. V. 14). See also the all-embracing 
office which is assigned to it in i Cor. 

15. J? ilprjVT] TOV XpifTTov^ 'Christ's 
peace,' which He left as a legacy to His 

disciples: Joh. xiv. 27 elprjv-qv af^lr^pLi 
Vfjuv, (Iprjvrjv rrfv ijxf)v bibwp.1 v/xiv', 
comp. Bphes. ii. 14 avros yap tariv 7j 

etpT]vr] rj/icoj/ with the context. The 
common reading 1] elprjvr] tov Qeov has 
a parallel in Phil. iv. 7. 

(3pa^eveTo>] 'be umpire' for the 
idea of a contest is only less promi- 
nent here, than in ftpa^dov i Cor. ix. 
24, Phil. iii. 14 (see the note there). 

SraSioy evBov iTroirjaev evTols Xoyia-p.o7s, 
writes Chrysostom, koI dymva koX adXr]- 

a-iv Koi (3pal3€VTJ]u. Wherever there 
is a conflict of motives or impulses or 
reasons, the peace of Christ must st«p 
in and decide which is to prevail : Mi) 
dvfios ^paj^fVfTw, says Chrysostom 
again, fx^ cPtKoveiKLa, /ii) dvOpumlvq 
elprivq' -q yap avBpiOTTivr] elpqvT] eK tov 
ap-vveaOai yiverai, ex tov fiqSev Tracr)(€tv 

For this metaphor of some one 
paramount consideration acting as 
umpire, where there is a conflict of 
internal motives, see Polyb. ii. 35. 3 

UTTap TO yiypofievov vtto t<ov FaXarcoi/ 
6vp.(^ p.aXkov r) Xoyicr/xto j3pal3fvi=~ 

adai, Philo de Migr. Abr. 12 (i. p. 

446) TTopfverai 6 d(^pa)V hi dp.(poTepa)P 
6vp.nv re Koi iTTiBvu'ias det...Toi/ rjv'io)(ov 

Kai ^pa^evTTjv \6yov dnoficLkwv 
(comp. de Ebriet. 19, i. p. 368), Jos. 
]3. J. vi. 2. 6 e^pa^eve tus ToXfias 6... 
(i>6i3o9. Somewhat similarly Tvxn 
(Polyb. xxvii. 14. 4) or 0va-if (Athen. 
XV. p. 670 a) are made PpajSeveip. In 
other passages, where 6 Oeos or t6 
6a.ov is said jSpalBeveip, this implies 
that, while man proposes, God dis- 
poses. In Philo dXqdeia ^palBevovaa 
(Qui rer. div. her. 19, i. p. 486) is a 
rough synonyme for dXrideia BiKa^ova-a 
(de Abrah. 14, 11. p. 10, etc.): and 
in Josephus {Ant. vi. 3. i) biKaCeip and 
(Bpa^evfiv are used together of the 
same action. In all such cases it ap- 
pears that the idea of a decision and 
an award is prominent in the word, 
and that it must not be taken to de- 
note simply rule or power. 

els qv /c.r.X.] Comp. I Cor. vii. 15 
iv be elprjVTj KeKXrjKev i]fias 6 Qeos. 

€1/ evl o-cofiaTi] ' As ye were called as 
members of one body, so let there 
be one spirit animating that body': 
Ephes. iv. 4 ^^ 0"w/ia Kai ep tvvevpLa. 
This passage strikes the keynote of 
the companion Epistle to the Ephe- 
sians (see esp. ii. 16 sq., iv. 3 sq.). 

evxapi(TToi\ ' And to crown all for- 
get yourselves in thanksgiving towards 
God': see the notes on i. 12, ii. 7. The 
adjective evxapia-Tos, though not oc- 
curring elsewhere in the Greek Bible, 
is not uncommon in classical writers, 
and like the English 'grateful,' has 
two meanings; either (i) 'pleasurable' 
(e.g. Xen. Cyr. ii. 2. i) ; or (2) ' thank- 
ful' (e.g. Boeckh C. I. no. 1625), as 

16, 17. ' Let the inspiring word of 
Christ dwell in your hearts, enriching 
you with its boundless wealth and en- 
dowing you with all wisdom. Teach 
and admonish one another with psalms, 
with hymns of praise, with spiritual 
songs of all kinds. Onlv let them be 



[III. i6 

yivecrOe. ^^'O A.070S tov ^pio'TOu ivoiKelTco ev vjuTv ttXov- 
cria)^ ev Tracrjj aocpta' ^ihacTKOVTe^ Kai vov6eTOvvTe<5 

pervaded with grace from heaveu. 
Sing to God in your hearts and not 
wit)) your lips only. And generally ; 
whatever ye do. whether in word or 
in deed, let everything be done in the 
name of Jesus Christ. And (again I 
repeat it) pour out your thanksgiving 
to God the Father through Him.' 

16. 'O \6yos TOV XpioTov] ' the word 
of Christ^ TOV Xpi(TTov being the sub- 
jective genitive, so that Christ is the 
speaker. Though 6 Xoyos tov Qeov 
and 6 Xoyos tov Kvpiov occur fre- 
quently, 6 Xoyos TOV Xpia-Tov is found 
here only. There seems to be no di- 
rect reference in this expression to 
any definite body of truths either 
written or oral, but 6 'Koyos tov Xpicr- 
Tov denotes the presence of Ciirist in 
the heart, as an inward monitor : 
comp. I Joh. iL 14 o Xoyos tov Oeov 
fv vfjLiv fievei, With lb. 1. lo 6 Xoyos av- 
Tov ovK i'a-Tiv ev rj/xlv, and SO perhaps 
Acts xviii. 5 o-vvei)(eTo rm Xoyw (the 
correct reading). 

ev vpiv] ' in you}' hearts,' not' among 
1J0U ' ; comp. Rom, viii. 9, 1 1 to ivoncovv 

avTov TTvevfia iv vp-lv, 2 Tim. 1. 5, 1 4, 

and Lev. xxvi. 12, as quoted in 2 Cor. 

vi. 16, ivoiKrjo-ut iv avTois. 

TrXouCTtcos] See above, p. 43 sq., and 
the note on i. 27. 

eV naaj] aocjiig.'] 'iti every kind of 
wisdom.' It seems best to take these 
words with the preceding clause, 
though Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 4 (p. 194) 
attaches them to what follows. For 
this position of iv ndaj) (To(f)ia, at the 
end of the sentence to which it refers, 
comp. i. 9, Ephes. i. 8. The connexion 
here adopted is also favoured by the 
parallel i)assage Ephes. v. 18, 19 (see 
the note below). Another passage i. 

28 vovdeTOiivres navTa avdpoinov Koi 
BibacTKovTes rravTa avdpanrov iv Traar) 
a-o(f)ia has a double bearuig : while the 
connexion favours our taking iv irda-j] 
(To<j)ia hero with the following words, 

the order suggests their being at- 
tached to the preceding clause. 

8i8aa-KovTes k.t.X.] The participles 
are here used for imperatives, as fre- 
quently in hortatory passages, e.g. 
Rom. xii. 9 sq , 16 sq., Ephes. iv. 2, 3, 
Hebr. xiii. 5, i Pet. ii. I2[?], iii. 1,7,9, 
15, 16. It is not, as some insist, that 
the participle itself has any imperati- 
val force; nor, as maintained by others, 
that the construction should be ex- 
plained by the hypothesis of a prece- 
ding parenthesis or of a verb sub- 
stantive understood or by any other 
expedient to obtain a regular gi-am- 
matical structure (see Winer, § xlv. 
p. 441 sq., § Ixii. p. 707, § Ixiii. p. 716, 
§ Ixiv. p. 732). But the absolute par- 
ticiple, beiug (so far as regards mood) 
neutral in itself, takes its colour from 
the general complexion of the sen- 
tence. Thus it is sometimes indica- 
tive (e.g. 2 Cor. vii. 5, and frequently), 
sometimes imperative (as in the pas- 
sages quoted;, sometimes optative (as 
above, ii. 2, 2 Cor. ix. 1 1, comp. Ephes. 
iii. 17). On the distinction of diSa- 
cTKfiv and vovdeTe'iv see the note on i. 
28 ; they describe respectively the posi- 
tive and the negative side of instruc- 
tion. On the reciprocal iavrovs see 
the note on iii. 13. 

■\l/aXp.ois K.T.X.] To be connected with 
the preceding sentence, as suggested 
by Ephes. v. 18 sq. dXXa TrXripouade iv 
TTvfVfiaTi, XaXovvTes eavTols [iv] •v//'aX- 
fiols Koi vp-vois Koi (idols {irvevpaTiKois^ 
aSovTes Koi yl/'oXXovres ttj Kap8ia vficov 
Tw Kvpi'o). The datives describe the 
instruments of the di8axij and vov- 


Tlie three words yj/aXp.6s, vp.vns, <ih), 
are distinguished, so far as they are 
distinguishable, in Trench N. T. Syn. 
§ Ixxviii. p. 279 sq. They are cor- 
rectly defined by Gregory Nyssen in 
Psalm, c. iii (i. p. 295) ■^aXp.os p-iv 
icrnv T] 8id TOV opydvov tov jiovaiKov 

III. i6] 



eavTOV9 \l/-a\iuoT<s vjuvoi'S w'Sals TrvevixaTLKai^ eV T•^5 

fifXcadia, wSi) Ss rj 81a. aro^aros yevo- 
{xevq Tov fj.e\ovs fiera prjixaTcou fTTKpoa- 
VT](ris...vfxi'os 8e rj fVi Tors' vnap)(ov(TLV 
rjixlv dyadols dvariBefiiur] ra Qea ev<^r;- 
fxia; see also Hippol. p. 191 sq. (ed. 
de Lagarde). In other words, while 
the leading idea of i/raX^oy is a musi- 
cal accoiupauimeut and that of v^vos 
praise to God, wSr; is the general word 
for a song, whether accompanied or 
unaccompanied, whether of praise or 
on any other subject. Thus it was 
quite possible for the same song to 
be at once \(/^aKix6s, v/jlvos, and wSrj. 
In the text the reference in \|/-aA/xotr, 
we may suppose, is specially, though 
not exclusively (i Cor. xiv. 26), to 
the Psalms of Daviil, which would 
early form part of the religious wor- 
ship of the Christian brotherhood. 
On the other hand ypvois would more 
appropriately designate those hymns 
of praise which were composed by the 
Christians themselves on distinctly 
Christian themes, being either set 
forms of words or spontaneous effu- 
sions of the moment. The third word 
wSatr gathers up the other two, and 
extends tiie precept to all forms of 
song, with the limitation however that 
they must be TrvevfiariKai St Chry- 
sostom treats v^vol here as an advance 
upon ylAokfjioi, which in one aspect they 
are; ol \j/a\fioL, he says, navra e^ovcriv, 
01 8e vfivot TToKtv ov8ev di'dpanrivov' 
orau iv Tois yl/akpois p-dOr), Tore Koi vp- 
vovs eicrerat, are deioTepov irpdypa. 

Psalmody and hymnody were highly 
developed in the religious services of 
the Jews at this time: see Philo in 
Flacc. 14 (11. p. 535) Trdvwxoi 8e 8in- 
reXecravres iv vpvois Koi dSals, de Vit. 
Cont. § 3 (11. p. 476) troiovaiv aapara 
Koi vpvovs els Qeov 8ia Travroicov perpcov 
Koi peXav, a pvdpols aepvorepois dvay- 
Kaicos xapuTTOva-i, § lO (p. 484) 6 dpa- 
aras vpvov a8ei TmroLrjpevov fls top 
Qfov, T] Kaivov avTos irenoiTjKcos rj dp- 
Xolov Tiva rav irdXai iroirjrcov' perpa 
yap Koi peXr] KaTaXiXoiTraai noXXa €7r«i» 

TpipeTpu>v, TrpoaoSloiv, vpviov, irapa- 
<nTuv8eia>v, Trapa^apiav, o-Taa-ipoiV, )(o- 
piKcov, (TTpocpais noXv(TTp6<fjoLs ev 8iape- 
perprjpevav K.T.X., § 1 1 (p. 485) a8ovai 
TTinoLripevovs els Tov Qeov vpvovs noX- 
Xots perpois naX peXecri k.t.X., with 

the whole context. They would thus 
find their way into the Christian 
Church from the very beginning. 
For instances of singing hymns or 
psalms in the Apostolic age see Acts 
iv. 24, xvi. 25, I Cor. xiv. 15, 26. 
Hence even in St Paul's epistles, more 
especially his later epistles, fragments 
of such hymns appear to be quoted; e.g. 
Ephes. V. 14 (see the note there). For 
the use of hymnody in the early Church 
of the succeeding generations see Plin. 
Epist. X. 97 'Ante lucem con venire, 
carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere 
secum invicem,' Anon. [Hippolytus] in 
Euseb. H. E. v. 28 i^aXpo\ 8e oaoi Koi 
(o8ai dSeXtpciv dir dpx^s vtto tti- 
(TTuiv ypacfieicrai tov Aoyov rov Qeov tov 
Xpiarov vpvov(TL OeoXoyovvTes. The 

reference in the text is not solely or 
chiefly to pubUc worship as such. 
Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 4 (p. 1 94) treats 
it as applying to social gatherings; 
and again Tertullian says of the agape, 
Apol. 39 'Ut quisque do scriptm-is 
Sanctis vel de proprio ingenio potest, 
provocatur in medium Deo canere,' 
and of the society of husband and 
wife, Ad Uxor. ii. 8 'Sonant inter 
duos psalmi et hymni, et mutuo pro- 
vocant quis melius Domino suo cantet.' 
On the psalmody etc. of the early 
Christians see Bingham Antiq. xiv. 
c. I, and especially Probst Le/ire und 
Gebet p. 256 sq. 

ev Tfi x'^P'Tt] '*w God's grace''; 
COmp. 2 Cor. i. 12 ov< iv aoc^la aap- 
KiKjj dXX' ev ;j^aptri Qeov. These 
words are perhaps best connected with 
the preceding clause, as by Chryso- 
stom. Thus the parallelism with iv 
nda-rj (To^la is preserved. The cor- 
rect reading is iv Tfj x^P'^t) not iv 
xdpiTi. For jj x^P'S') 'Divine grace' 



[III. 17, 1 8 

^dpiriy a^ovTes ev tuI^ Kaphiai^ vfj-wv Tea 0ew* ^'^ Kai 
Trav b TL eav TroifjTe ev Xoyto // iu epyco, Travra ev 
6vojJ.aTL KvpLOv 'Irjcrou, ev^apicrrovvTe^ Tip 0ew TraTpi 

^L aVTOV. 

At 'yvvoLKe^, vTTOTacro'eo'Ge tol^ dvZpacnVj cJs avt]- 


SC6 Phil. i. 7 crvvKotvdivoiis nov ttjs 
xapiTos with the note. The definite 
article seems to exclude all lower 
senses of x^P'f here, such as 'accept- 
ableness,' 'sweetness' (see iv. 6). The 
interpretation ' with gratitude,' if 
otherwise tenable (comp. i Cor. x. 30), 
seems inappropriate here, because the 
idea of thanksgiving is introduced in 
the following verse. 

adovres k.t.X.] This external mani- 
festation must be accompanied by the 
inward emotion. There must be the 
thanksgiving of the heart, as well as 
of the lips ; comp. Ephes. v. 19 aSovrts 
Koi yl^dWovres rfj Kaphla (probably the 
correct reatling), where rfi Kap8ia 
' with the heart ' brings out the sense 
more distinctly. 

17. irav o Ti K.T.X.] This is proba- 
bly a nominative absolute, as Matt. x. 
32 Tras oiiv ocrris o/jiokoyijcrei.... ofio- 
T^oy-qcrci) Kayo) ev avTco (comp. Luke 
xii. 8), Luke xii. 10 Tras os- epti Xoyov 
...d(l){6r](reTai aOrw, John xvii. 2 ndv 
o 8e8ctiKas avToi, ducrrj avTols k.t.X.; 

comp. Matt. vii. 24 (v. 1.). 

irdvTo] sc. TToifire, as the following 
ei'xapto-T-oOi-Tf y suggests ; comp. ver. 

iu ovofiari k.t.X.] This is the great 
practical lesson which flows from the 
theological teaching of the epistle. 
Hence the reiteration of Kvpia, iv 
Kvpi'o), etc., vv. 18^ 20, 22, 23, 24. See 
above, p. 102. 

fvp^opto-rovvrcy] On this refrain see 
tlie notes on i. 12, ii. 7. 

TM Gew TTarpi] This, which is quite 
the best authenticated reading, gives 
a very imusual, if not unique, colloca- 
tion of words, the usual form being 
either 6 6e6s ical Trarrjp or Geoy -jraTijp. 

The Kai before Trarpl in the received 

text is an obvious emendation. See 
the note on i. 3, and the appendix on 
various readings. 

18 — 21. 'Ye wives, be subject to 
your husbands, for so it becomes you 
in Christ. Ye husbands, love and 
cherish your wives, and use no harsh- 
ness towards them. Ye children, be 
obedient to your parents in all things ; 
for this is commendable and lovely iu 
ChrLst. Ye parents, vex not your 
children, lest they lose heart and grow 

18 sq. These precepts, pro^ading 
for the conduct of Cln^istians in private 
households, should be compared with 
Ephes. V. 22 — vi. 9, i Pet. ii. 18— iii. 7, 
Tit. ii. I sq.; see also Clem. Rom. i, 
Polyc. Phil. 4 sq. 

Ai yvvaiKei] ' Ye wices^ the nomina- 
tive with the definite article being 
used for a vocative, as frequently in 
the New Testament, e.g. Matt. xi. 26, 
Mark v. 41, Luke viii. 54; see "Winer 
§ xxix. p. 227 sq. The frequency of 
this use is doubtless due to the fact 
that it is a reproduction of the He- 
brew idiom. In the instances quoted 
from classical writers (see Bernhardy 
Syntax p. 67) the address is not 
so directly vocative, the nominative 
being used rather to define or select 
than to summon the person in ques- 

Tols dvSpaa-iv] The iS/oiy of the 
received text may have been inserted 
(as it is inserted also in Ephes. v. 24) 
from Ephes. v. 22, Tit. ii. 5, i Pet. iii. 
I, 5, in all which passages this same 
injunction occurs. The scribes how- 
ever show a general fondness for this 
adjective; e.g. Mark xv. 20, Luke ii. 3, 
Acts i. 19, Ephes. iv. 28, i Thess. ii. 
15, iv. II. 

III. 19—22] 



K6V ev KvpiM. ^^Ol apdpe^, dyaTruTe Ta^ yvvaiKa's Kai 
jULT] TTiKpaivecrve ttjOos avTa<s. ^ la T6Kva, viraKOvere 
t61<s yovevo'LV KaTa TravTW tovto ycip evapecTOV ecTTLV 
ev Kvpiu). ^^Oi 7raTep69f jurj epedi^STe ra tckvu v/utoUf 
'ii/a firi dOvfjiwcnv. '*Ol hovXoi, vTraKOvere Kara iravra 

avTjKev] The imperfect, as Ephes. v. 
4 a ovK. avfjKiv (the correct reading) ; 
comp. Clem. Horn. Contest. 3 rovbe 
fjifj ij,fTa8ovvai. X"P"'> '^S' ov Trpocrrj Kev, 
Xen. de Be Equestr. sii. 14 a iTnrdpxco 
irpocrfjKfv etSeVai re Kai npaTreiv ; and 
see B'Orville on Cbarito viii. 2 (p, 699 
sq.). The common uses of the imper- 
fect eSet, eTvpenev, etc., in classical wri- 
ters do not present a very exact 
parallel; for they imply that the thing 
which ought to have been done has 
been left undone. And so we miglit 
interjiret Acts xxii. 22 ou yap KaBrj- 
Kiv avTov ^rjv (the correct reading). 
Here however there can hardly be 
any such reference ; and the best 
illustration is the English past tense 
'ought' ( — 'owed'), which is used in 
the same way. The past tense per- 
haps implies an essential a priori 
obligation. The use of XP^"? ^'xPV^i 
occasionally approximates to this; e.g. 
Eur. Andr. 423. 

The idea of ' propriety' is the link 
which connects the primary meaning 

of such words as avri<eiv, npoa-i^Keiv, 
Ka6>]KfLv, 'aiming at or pertaining to,' 
with their ultimate meaning of moral 
obligation. The Avord dvrjKeiv occurs 
in the New Testament only here and 
in the contemporary epistles, Ephes. 
v. 4, Philcm. 8. 

eV Kupiw] Probably to be connected 
with cos dvfjKev, rather than with vtto- 
TCKTaeaBe; comp. ver. 20 eJapeoroj/ 
icTTiv ev Kvpiat. 

19. /xi) TTiKpalvea-Be k.t.X.] 'show no 
bitterness, behave not harshly'; comp. 
Lynceus in Athen. vi. p. 242 c iriKpav- 
Be'iTf irpoi Tiva ru)V av^covTcoi^, Joseph. 
Ant. V. 7- I Sfti/ws Trpos Toiis Tov Si- 
Kaiov iTpoi(TTap.ivovs eKTriKpaivofievos, 
Plut. Ilor. p. 457 A npos yvvaia 8ia- 


TTLKpalvovTai. So also iriKpalviddai. hvl 
Tiva in the lxx, Jerem. xliv (xxxvii). 
15, 3 Esdr. iv. 31. This verb iriKpal- 
veadat and its compounds occur fre- 
quently in classical writers. 

20. Kara Travra] As in ver. 22. The 
rule is stated absolutely, because the 
exceptions are so few that they may 
be disregarded. 

evapea-Tov i(TTiv] ' is well pleasing, 
commendable.^ The received text 
supplies this adjective with a dative 
of reference rw livpia (from Ephes. 
V. 10), but ev Kvpico is unquestionably 
the right reading. With the reading 
thus corrected evapearov, like dvrJKev 

ver. 18, must be taken absolutely, 
as perhaps in Rom. xii. 2 rh 6ekr)p,a 
TOV Qeov TO aya6ov koX evapecnov koi 
Tekeiov. comp. Phil. iv. 8 oaa (rep-vd 
...ocra Trpo(r(f)L\rj. The qualification 
ev Kvpia implies 'as judged by a 
Christian standard,' 'as judged by 
those who are members of Christ's 

21. fpediCere'] ' provoke, irritate.' 
The other reading Trapopyi^ere has 
higher support, but is doubtless taken 
from the parallel passage, Ephes. vi. 4. 
' Irritation ' is the first consequence of 
being too exacting with children, and 
irritation leads to moroseness {ddv- 
pia). In 2 Cor. ix. 2 ipedi^eiv is used 
in a good sense and produces the 
opposite result, not despondency but 

ddvptixnvl 'lose heart, become spi- 
ritless,' i. e. ' go about their task 
in a listless, moody, sullen frame of 
mind.' ' Fractus animus,' says Ben- 
gel, ' pestis juventutis.' In Xen. Cyr. 
1.6. 13 ddvp'ia is opposed to irpoQvpia, 
and in Thuc. ii. 88 and elsewhere 
ddvp-elv is opposed to dapcrelv. 




[HI. 23 

TO?s KUTa (TapKa Kvpioi^, /ut] ev ocpdaXjuodouXeia ws 
dvdpoiTrdpeo'KOL, dXX ev d7r\oTt]TL Kapdlas, (po/^ovjuevoL 
Tov Kvpiov. °'^6 eav TroifjTe, e'/c -KJ/^v^rj^ epya^ecrOe <os 

■22. iv 6<p6a\fj,oSov\elai.s. 

12 fir] (OS o0^aX/LioSovXos aX\ as <pt- 

22 — iv. I. 'Ye slaves, be obedient 
in all things to the masters set over 
you in the flesh, not rendering them 
service only when their eyes are upon 
you, as aiming merely to please men, 
but serving in all sincerity of heart, as 
living in the sight of your Heavenly 
Master and standing in awe of Him. 
And in everything that ye do, work 
faithfully and with all your soul, as 
labouring not for men, but for the 
great Lord and Master Himself ; know- 
ing that ye have a Master, from whom 
ye will receive the glorious inheritance 
as your recompense, whether or not 
ye may be defrauded of your due by 
men. Yes, Christ is your Master and 
ye are his slaves. He that does a 
wi'ong shall be requited for his wrong- 
doing. I say not this of slaves only, 
but of masters also. There is no jjar- 
tiality, no respect of persons, in God's 
distribution of rewards and punish- 
ments. Therefore, ye masters, do ye 
also on your part deal justly and equi- 
tably by your slaves, knowing that ye 
too have a Master in heaven.' 

22. Ot fiovXoi] The relations of 
masters and slaves, both here and in 
the companion epistle (Ephes. vi. 
5 — 9), are treated at gi-eater length 
than is usual with St Paul. Here 
especially the expansion of this topic, 
compared with the brief space assign- 
ed to the duties of wives and husbands 
(tv. 18, 19), or of children and parents 
(vv. 20, 21), deserves to be noticed. 
The fact is explained by a contempo- 
rai-y incident in the Apostle's private 
life. His intercourse with Onesimus 
had turned his thoughts in this di- 
rection. See above, p.33, and the in- 
troduction to the Epistle to Philemon : 
com p. also the note on ver. 11. 

6<p6a\ixo8ovkeig.] ' eye-servlce,' as 
Ephes. vi. 6 : comp. A2yost. Const, iv. 

XobecTTTOTos. This happy expression 
would seem to be the Apostle's own 
coinage. At least there are no traces 
of it earliei. Compare edeXodprjo-Kela 
ii. 23. The reading o^^aX/xoSovXe/a 
is better supported than 64>da.\fio8ov- 
Xelais, though the plural is rendered 
slightly more pi'obable in itself by its 
greater difficulty. 

dvdpairapea-Koi] Again in Ephes. vi. 
6. It is a Lxx word, Ps. Hi. 6, where 
the Greek entirely departs from the 
Hebrew : comp. also di'dprnrrapea-Ke'iv 
Ign. Rotn. 2, dpdpconapea-KeLa Justin 
Apol. i. 2 (p. 53 e). So oxkoapecTKrjs 

or 6x>^oapeaKos, Timo Phlias. in Diog. 
Laert iv. 42 (vv. 11.). 

drrXoTTyrt AcapSi'a?] As in Ephes. vi. 5, 
i.e. 'with undicided service'; a lxx 
expression, i Chron. xxix. 17, Wisd. i. i. 

TOV Kvpiov] ^the one Lord and 
Master,' as contrasted with rois Kara 
aapKu Kvpiois: the idea being carried 
out in the following verses. The re- 
ceived text, by substituting tov Oeov, 
blunts the edge of the contrast. 

23. epyaCfcrde] i.e. *do it dili- 
gently,' an advance upon Trot^rf. 

ovK dvdpcoTTois] For the use of 01) 
rather than ixfj in antitheses, see Wi- 
ner § Iv. p. 601 sq. The negative 
here is wholly unconnected with the 
imperative, and refers solely to r« 
Kv pi CO. 

24. dirb Kvpiov'] ' However you may 
be treated by your earthly masters, 
you have still a Master who will re- 
compense you.' The absence of the 
definite article here (comp. iv. i) is 
the more remarkable, because it is 
studiously inserted in the context, w. 
22 — 24, TOV Kvpiov, ra Kvpia, tS Kv- 

p'lco. In the parallel passage Ephes. 
vi. 8 it is TTopa Kupt'ou : for the differ- 
ence between the two see Gal. i. 12. 

III. 24, 25] 



Tft) Kvpiit), Kai ovK dvdpcoTTOi^f ^'^ei^ores on diro Kvpiov 

a.TToXrifJiyl^ea'de ttjv avTairo^ocTLV tPjs KXripovofJua^' tw 

Kvpio) Xpi(TTM douXevere' ^^d yap ddiKcoi^ KOfMceTaL 6 

best to suppose that both are included. 
The connexion of the sentence 6 yap 
ddmrZv (where yap, not 8e, is certainly 
the right reading) points to the slave. 

T^v diTanoBocnv^ ' the just recom- 
pense,^ a common word both in the 
Lxx and in classical writers, though 
not occurring elsewhere in the New 
Testament ; comp. avrairoboyia Luke 
xiv. 12, Rom. si. 9. The double com- 
pound involves the idea of ' exact re- 

Trjs K\Tjpovofilas] 'which consists in 
the inheritance^ the genitive of appo- 
sition: see the note on tj)*/ nepiba rov 
KXtjpov, i. 12. There is a paradox in- 
volved in this word : elsewhere the 
8011X05 and the kKt]pov6iios are con- 
trasted (Matt. xxi. 35 — 38, etc., Rom. 
viii. 15 — 17, Gal. iv. i, 7), but here 
the 8ov\os is the KXrjpovopos. This he 
is because, though dov\os dudpconcovjhQ 
is drrfXevdepos Kvpiov (l Cor. vii. 22) 
and thus KXrjpovofxos 8ia Oeov (Gal. iv. 
7); comp. Hennas Sim. v. 2 iva a-vy- 
K\r]pov6nos yevTjTai 6 bovKos tc5 ih'm 
(with the context). 

T<a Kvpicp K.T.X.] i. e. * you serve as 
your master the great blaster Christ.' 
This clause is added to explain how 
is meant by the preceding aTTo Kvpiov. 
For this apphcation of Kvptos com- 
pare (besides the parallel passage, 
Ephes. vi. 6 — 9) i Cor. vii. 22 6 yap 
ev Kvpia Kkrjdels BovXos dneXfiidepos 
Kvpiov fo-Tiv K.T.X. It seems best to 
take dovXtvere here as an indicative, 
rather than as an imperative ; for (i) 
The indicative is wanted to explain 
the previous drro Kvpiov ; (2) The im- 
perative would seem to require as rw 
Kvpim, as in Ephes. vi. 7 (the correct 
text). On the other hand see Rom. 
xii. II. 

25. 6 yap d8iKa>v k.t.X.] Who is 
this unrighteous person 1 The slave 
who defrauds his master of his ser- 
vice, or the master who defrauds his 
slave of his reward? Some interpret- 
ers confine it exclusively to the for- 
mer ; others to the latter. It seems 

On the other hand the expression 
which follows, TO diKaiov Kal Trjv 1(t6- 
Tr]Ta K.T.X., suggests the master. Thus 
there seems to be a twofold reference ; 
the warning is suggested by the case 
of the slave, but it is extended to the 
case of the master ; and this accords 
with the parallel passage, Ephes. vi. 8 

eKaaTOS o av TroiijaTj dyadov tovto Kopi- 
aeTai ivapa Kvpiov, el' re bovXos eiVe 

The recent fault of Onesimus w^ould 
make the Apostle doubly anxious to 
emphasize the duties of the slave to- 
wards the master, lest in his love for 
the offender he should seem to con- 
done the offence. This same word 
rjdiKrja-ev is Used by St Paul to describe 
the crime of Onesimus in Philem. 18. 
But on the other hand it is the Apo- 
stle's business to show that justice 
has a double edge. There must be a 
reciprocity between the master and 
the slave. The philosophers of Greece 
taught, and the laws of Rome assumed, 
that the slave was a chattel. But a 
chattel could have no rights. It would 
be absurd to talk of treating a chattel 
with justice. St Paul places the rela- 
tions of the master and the slave in a 
wholly different light. Justice and 
equity are the expression of the Di- 
vine mind : and with God there is no 
Trpoa-coTToX-qpylfia. With Him the claims 
of the slave are as real as the claims 
of the master. 

Kopia-cTai] For this sense of the 
middle, 'to recover,' 'to get back,' 
and so (with an accusative of the thing 
to be recompensed), ' to be requited 
for ', see e.g. Lev. xx. 1 7 dpapriav Kopi- 

oiivrai, 2 Cor. V, lO KopiaTjTai eKacTTos 
TO. Sta Tov awp-aTos ', comp. Baniab. 

IS— 2 



[IV. I 

tj^LKfjaeu, Kui ouK ecTTiu 7rpo(Ta)7roXt]fjL\lyia. IV. ^Ol 
Kvpioi, TO hiKaiov Kcd Tt]v i(roTt]Ta ToT£ douXoi^ Trape- 
X^G-Ocy elhoTe^ OTL Kal vfieh e^ere }^vpiov ev ovpavS. 

§40 Knpioy dnpocrooTToXi] inrras Kpivd 
TOP Kocrp-ov' eKacTTOs, Ka6a>s inolr^cnv, 

KOfiu'iTai. In the parallel passage 
Bphes. vi. 8, the form is certainly ko- 
[xicreTai : here it is more doubtful, the 
authorities being more equally divided 
between KOfxiflrai and KoixicreTai. See 
however the note on yvoopia-ova-iv iv. 9. 
Trpocr(OT!-okr]fj.ylria] Ou this WOI'd see 
the note Gal. ii. 6. This Tvpoa-unroX-qp.- 
yj/^ia, though generally found on the 
side of rank and power, may also be 
exercised in favour of the opposite ; 
Lev. xix, 15 ov X^x//-?/ npoaatTTov tttco- 
)(ov ovdi p-rj Oavpaaijs Trpoaunov 8vva- 

cTTov. There would be a tendency in 
the mind of the slave to assume that, 
because the iTpoaaiTo\r]p.-^ia of man 
was on the side of the master, there 
must be a corresponding Trpoaunro- 
Xt^/x-v/zio of God on the side of the 
slave. This assumi^tion is con-ected 
by St Paul. 

IV. I. TTjv la-oTrjTo] ' equity^ ^ fair- 
ness ; comj). Plut. >Sol. et PopL Comp. 3 
vofjLCdv laoTTjra iTap()(6vTa>i>. Somewliat 
similarly Lysias Or. Fun. yj (speak- 
ing of death) ouTe yap tovs novrjpovs 
VTTfpopa owe roiis ayadovs 6avp.a^ei, 
aXX luov eavrov Trapex^i iracnv. 
It seems a mistake to suppose that 
laoTTjs here has anything to do with 
the treatment of slaves as equals 
(comp. Philem. 16). When connected 
with TO diKcuov, the word naturally sug- 
gests an even-handed, impartial treat- 
ment, and is equivalent to the Latin 
aequitas : comp. Arist. Toi?. vi. 5 (p. 
143) o Tf)v ^iKaiocrvvriv (Xiyaiv) t^iv lao- 
TTjTos noirjTiKrjv TJ ?iiavefjiT)TiKr]V tov laov, 

Philo de Great. Princ. 14 (11. p. 373) 

ecTTt yap i(T6Tr]i.,./j.i^TT]p ditcaioavvrji, 

Clem. Alex. Strom, vi. 6 (p. 764) fieTo. 

8iKaiocrvpr]i Kal Ictottjtos Trjs Trpos tovs 

fTTl(TTpt(pOVTaS. Thus lu AHst. Fl/i. 

Nic. V. I TO diKaiov and t6 Xaov are 
regarded as synouymes, and in Plut. 

Mor. p. 719 the relation of Io-ottjs to 
diKMOTTjs is discussed. The word here 
is used in the same sense in which the 
adjective occurs in the common ex- 
pressions icros BiKacTTijs, icroy dicpoar/ys-, 
etc. Philo, describing the Essene 
condemnation of slavery, says, Omn. 
prob. lib. 12 (11. p. 457) KaTayivdaKovai 
Te Tciji/ Seo"7rorc5i', ov p.6vov as d8iKcov, 
icroTTjTa \vp.aLvoptvuiv, aWa Kal cos aae- 

/3a)i/ K.T.X., but he possibly does mean 
' equality' rather than 'equity.' 

irapexfo-de] ' e.vhibit on your pari.' 
The middle irnpexea-dai, 'to aflbrdfrom 
oneself,' will take different shades of 
meaning according to the context, as 
' to furnish one's quota ' (e.g. Herod, 
viii. I, 2) or 'to put forward one's rc- 
preserdative' (esp. of witnesses, e.g. 
Plato Apol. 19 d). Here the idea is 
' reciprocation,' the master's duty as 
con-esponding to the slave's. 

e^fTf Kuptoi'] As Ephes. vi. 9; comp. 
I Cor. vii. 22 d eXfvdepoi K\i]6els doii- 
\6s i<TTiv XpiaTov. 

2 — 6. ' i3e earnest and unceasing 
in prayer; keep yoiu- hearts and minds 
awake while praying: remember also 
(as I have so often told you) that 
thanksgiving is the goal and crown of 
prayer. Meanwhile in your petitions 
forget not us — myself Paul — my fellow- 
labourer Timothy — your evangelist 
Epaphras — all the teachers of the 
Gospel ; but pray that God may open 
a door for the preaching of the word, 
to the end that we may proclaim the 
free offer of grace to the Gentiles — 
that great mystery cf Christ for which 
I am now a prisoner in bonds. So 
shall I declare it fearlessly, as I am 
bound to proclaim it. Walk wisely 
and discreetly in all your dealings with 
unbelievers; allow no opportunity to 
slip through your hands, but buy up 
every passing moment. Let your lan- 
guage be always pervaded with grace 

IV. 2-4] 



Tf] Trpocev^f] TrpocrKapTepelTe, ypiiyopouvTe^ 


avTrj ev ev^apio'Tia' ^Trpocrev^ofievoL afxa Kai irepi tjjJLoov, 
'iva 6 0eo§ dvoi^t] t'lfjuu 6vpav tou Xoyou, XaXfjcrai to 
fj.vcTTi'ipLOv TOU XpicTTOUj ^L 6 KUL ZeZefxai' ^ 'Ivct (have- 

and seasoned with salt. So will you 
know how to give a fit answer to each 
man, as the occasion demands.' 

2, Trpoo-Koprepetre] ^ cling closely 

to', Remain constant to' (conip. Mark 
iii. 9, Acts viii. 13, x. 7), and so 'con- 
tinue stedfast in.' This word occurs 
again with r^ irpoa-fvxrj, rais npoaev- 
xals. Acts i. 14, ii. 42, vi. 4, Rom. xii. 
12. The consti'uction is with a simple 
dative both in the New Testament 
(11. cc.) and in classical writers, except 
where it stands absolutely (Acts ii. 46, 
Rom. xiii. 6). The injunction here 
corresponds to the dSiaXeirrrcoy npoa-- 
fCxeaOe of I Thess. V. 17. 

yp-qyopovvres] Long continuance in 
prayer is apt to produce listlessness. 
Hence the additional charge that the 
heart must be awake, if the prayer 
is to have any value. The word is not 
to be taken literally here, but meta- 
phorically. In Matt. xxvi. 41 etc., yp-q- 
yopelre Koi Trpoa-evxecrBf, the idea is uot 
quite the same. 

eV ivxapia-T'ia\ As the crown of aU 
prayer; see the notes on i. 12, ii. 7. 

3. rjjiav] 'us,' 'the Apostles and 
preachers of the Gospel/ with refer- 
ence more especially to Timothy (i, i) 
and Epaphras (iv. 12, 13). Where 
the Apostle speaks of himself alone, 
he uses the singular (ver. 3, 4 SeSe/xai, 
^avepuxTco). Indeed there is no rea- 
son to think that St Paul ever uses an 
' epistolary' plural, referring to himself 
solely: see on i Thess. iii. i. 

Iva K.T-.X.] On the sense of Iva after 
irpoaevxea-Oai etc., see the note on i. 9. 

6vpav Tox) Xoyou] ' a door of admis- 
sion for the word,' i. e. ' an oppor- 
tunity of preaching the Gospel,' as 
I Cor. xvi. 9 6vpa yap fioi dvemyev 
fiiyaXr] koX evepyijs, 2 Cor. ii. 12 
6vpas fJiOi dveayp.€vr]s iv Kvplo) : COmp. 

Plut, Ilor. p. 674 D (Sa-nep tjtvXtjs dv- 
OL)(d£i(rr]s, ovK dvri<j)(0v...(Tvvei.(TL0V(Ti, 
iravToSaTTols aKpoanacriv. Similarly eiVo- 
80s is used in i Thess. i. 9, ii. i. The 
converse application of the metaphor 
appears in Acts xiv. 27 rjvoi^ev toi? 
fdi>€(Tiv 6vpav TriaTeas, where the door 
is opened not to the teachers, but to 
the recipients of the Gospel. Accord- 
ing to another interpretation (suggest- 
ed by Ephes. vi. 19 tva p.01 Bodrj Xoyos 
iv dvoi^ei Tov arofiaros fxov) it is ex- 
i:)Iained ' the door of our speech,' i. e. 
'our mouth': comp. Ps. cxli (cxl). 3, 
Mic. vii. 5, Ecclus. xxviii. 25. 13ut the 
parallel passages do not favour this 
sense, nor wiU the words themselves 
admit it. In that case for ^fiiv 6vpav 
TOV Xoyou we should require Tqv 6vpav 
Tu)v \6yaiv \rip.a>v\ 'The word' here is 
' the Gospel,' as frequently. 

XaXrjaai] ' SO as to speak' the in- 
finitive of the consequence, like dhivai 
ver. 6; see Winer § xliv. p. 400. 

TO fiv(TTi]piov K.r.X.] i. e. the doctrine 
of the free admission of the Gentiles. 
For the leading idea which St Paul 
in these epistles attaches to 'the mys- 
tery' of the Gospel, see the note on 
i. 26. 

Si o] St Paul might have been still 
at large, if he had been content to 
preach a Judaic Gospel. It was be- 
cause he contended for Gentile liberty, 
and thus oflended Jewish prejudices, 
that he found himself a prisoner. See 
Acts xxi. 28, xxii. 21, 22, xxiv. 5, 6, 
XXV. 6, 8. The other reading, 81 ov, 
destroys tbe point of the sentence. 

Koi 8f Sepal] 2 Tim. ii. 9 p.€xpi Seo-- 
(imv, Philem. 9 j/ui/i 8e Kal dia-nLos. 

4. tva cjiavepdxroi k.t.X.] This is 
best taken as dependent on the pre- 
vious clause iva 6 Qeos—Tov Xpia-Tov. 
For instances of a double iva, where 



[IV. 5, 6 

puxrui avTO, ws ^ei fie Xa\fja-ai. ^ev a-ocpta TrepnraTeLTe 
irpo'S Toil's e^do, tov Kaipov i^ayopa^ojuei/OL' ^6 Aoyos 

the second is not coordinated with, 
but subordinated to, the first, see the 
note on Gal. iil 14. The immediate 
purport of the Colossians' prayers 
must be that the Apostle should have 
all opportunities of preaching the 
Gospel: the ulterior object, that he 
should use these opportunities boldly. 
5. eV CTO0ia] Matt. X. 16 ylvfade 
ovv (fypovifioL cos ol o(j)eis. 

Tovs e$(j)] Hhose without the pale'' 
of the Church, the unbehevers; as in 
I Cor. V. 12, 13, I Thess. iv. 12. So o\ 
e$a)6ev, I Tim. iii. 7. The believers on 
the other hand are ol eaco, i Cor. v. 1 2. 
This mode of speaking was derived 
from the Jews, who called the heathen 
D^JI^'Tin (Schottgen on i Cor. l. c), 
translated ol cktos Ecclus. Prol. and 
01 i'^adev Joseph. Ant. xv. 9. 2. 

i^ayopa^ofxevoi k.t.X.] ' buying up 
tlie opportunity for yourselves, let- 
ting no opportunity slip you, of saying 
and doing what may further the cause 
of God': comp. Ephes. v. 16. The ex- 
pression occurs also in Dan. ii. 8 olba 
oTi Kaipov vpds (^ayopd^€T€, i. 6. ' are 
eager to gain time.' Somewhat simi- 
lar are the phrases rhv xpovov Kepbai- 

P€ip, TO irapov KepSaiveiv. So too Scncca 

JSp. i. I ' Tempus...collige et serva.' 
In much the same sense Ignatius says, 
JPolyc. 3 TOVS Kaipovs KaTapLUvdave. For 
this sense of f^ayopa ^m 'coemo' (closely 
aUied in meaning to o-iimyopd^o)), see 

Polyb. iii. 42. 2 e^ijyopaa-e Trap' avT^p 
TO. Te povo^vXa nXoia iravra k.t.X., 
Plut. Vit. Crass. 2. More commonly 
the word signifies 'to redeem' (see the 
note on Gal. iii. 13), and some would 
assign this sense to it here; but no ap- 
propriate meaning is thus obtained. In 

Mart. Polyc. 2 Sia pias Spas ttjv alco- 
viov KoXacriv f^ayopa(,opevoi it means 
' buying ofl",' a sense in which i^avel- 
adai occurs several times. The reason 
for the uij unction is added in Ephes. 
V. 16, on ai rfptpai irovrjpai elaiv. the 

prevailing evil of the times makes the 
opportunities for good more precious. 
6. iv xaptTt] ^with grace, favour' 
L e. ' acceptableness,' 'pleasiugness'; 
comp. Eccles. S. 12 Xoyot a-ropaTos 
ao(f)ov x°P'^> -P^' ^li^ (^^^')' 3 ^^^X^^l 
X<^pi-s fV x^^^'^^ (Tov, Ecclus. xxi. 16 eVi 
Xfi'Xovs crvviTov evpfdrjcreTat, x^pts. In 

classical writers x"P'^ X6ya>v is a still 
more common connexion ; e.g.Demosth. 
c. Phil. i. 38, Dionys. Hal. de Lys. 
§§ 10, II, Plut. Vit. Mar. 44. 

aKaTC\ Comp. Mark ix. 50 lav Se TO 
aXas avaKov yevrjrai, iv Tivk avrb 
dpTvcreTe; exfve iv eavrols S.Xa. The 
salt has a twofold purpose, (i) It 
gives a flavour to the discourse and 
recommends it to the palate: comp. 

Job vi. 6 ft ^paiO^aeTai apros avev 
aXos; el 8e koi ecm yevpa iv pijpacri 
Kevols; in which passage the first 
clause was rendered by Symmachus 

P'^Ti ^pcodqaerai dvapTVTOV Ta pfj 
e;^etf aXa; This is the primary idea 
of the metaphor here, as the word ijp- 
Tvpivos seems to show. (2) It pi-eserves 
from corruption and renders whole- 
some; Ign. Magn. 10 aXlaOriTe iv 
avT(o Iva pff ?iia(f)dapj} tis iv vp'iv, 
iirtX airo t^s ocrpfjs iXeyxdrjatirdf. 

Hence the Pythagorean saying, Diog. 
Laert. viii. I. 35 ''' aXis nav a-a^ovaiv 
o Ti Kul napaXai3(0(Ti. It may be in- 
ferred that this secondary applica- 
tion of the metaphor was present to 
the Apostle's mind here, because in 
the parallel epistle, Ephes. iv. 29, he 
says Tray Xoyos cranpos iK tov oto- 
paros vpav pfj iKWOpeveadu) k.t.X. In 

the first application the opposite to 
aXari rjpTvpivos would be pcopos 'in- 
sipid' (Luke xiv. 34); in the second, 
aanpos ' corrupt.' 

Heathen writers also insisted that 
discourse should be 'seasoned with 
salt'; e.g. Cic. de Orat. i. 34 'facetia- 
rum quidam lepos quo, tanquam sale, 
perspergatur omnis oratio.' They 

IV. 7] 



TTco^ Zei evL eKacTTio dTroKpLi/ea-dai, 

'Tcf /car' ifxe iravTU yvajpL(r6i vfjuv TJ;!^f«:os 6 d<ya- 

likewise dwelt on the connexion be- 
tween x^P'-s ^^d oKes', e.g. Plut. 31or. 

p. 514 P X'^P"' '""'^ Trapa<TKeva.^ovT€s 
dXXj^Xotf, (ucTTrep dXcrl Toty \6yoi<: ((prj- 
^vvova-i TT]v 8iaTpi^i]v, p. 697 D (com p. p. 
685 a) 01 TToWol xapiras KaXovaiv [tov 
aXa], on enl to. TrXetcrra fiiyvviievos 
fvapfiocTTa TJj yevaei Koi 7rpocr0iX^ noiei 
Kai Kexapi.CTp.iva, p. 669 A j; 8e ratv akav 
bvvapis...xapiv avTci Ka\ -qdovrjv Trpocr- 
Tidrja-i, Dion Chrys. Or. xviii. § 13. 
Their notion of 'salt' however was 
wit, and generally the kind of wit 
which degenerated into the evrpane- 
Xla denounced by St Paul in Ephes. 
V. 4 (see the note there). 

The form aXas is common in the 
Lxx and Greek Testament. Other- 
wise it is rare : see Buttmann Gramm. 
I. p. 220, and comp. Plut. Mor. 668 p. 

elhevai] ' SO as to ktiow' ; see the note 
on \akTf(rai. ver. 3. 

(v\ eKCKTTco] ' Not only must your 
conversation be opportune as regards 
the time; it must also be appropriate 
as regards the person.' The Apostle's 
precept was enforced by his own ex- 
ample, for he made it a rule to be- 
come Toi^ Tvacriv iravTa, Iva napTcos ti- 
vas aaxTT] (l Cor. ix. 22). 

7 — 9. 'You will learn everything 
about me from Tychicus, the beloved 
brother who has ministered to me 
and served with me faithfully in the 
Lord. This indeed was my purpose 
in sending him to you : that you might 
be informed how matters stand with 
me, and that he might cheer your 
hearts and strengthen your resolves 
by the tidings. Onesimus will accom- 
pany him— a faithful and beloved bro- 
ther, who is one of yourselves, a Co- 
lossian. These two will inform you of 
all that is going on here.' 

7. Ta kut' €fj.e iravra] 'all that 
relates to me'; see the note on 
Phil. i. 12, and comp. Bion in Diog. 

Laert. iv. 47. So Acts xxv. 14 ra Kara 
TOV IlavXov, 

yvcapia-ei] On this word see the 
note Phil. i. 22. 

Ti;;^tKor] Tychicus was charged by 
St Paul at this same time with a more 
extended mission. He was entrusted 
with copies of the circular letter, 
which he was enjoined to deliver in 
the principal churches of proconsular 
Asia (see above, p. 37, and the intro- 
duction to the Epistle to the Ephe- 
sians). This mission would bring him 
to Laodicea, which was one of these 
great centres of Christianity (see p. 8); 
and, as Colossse was only a few miles 
distant, the Apostle would naturally 
engage him to pay a visit to the Co- 
lossians. At the same time the pre- 
sence of an authorised delegate of St 
Paul, as Tychicus was known to be, 
would serve to recommend Onesimus, 
who owing to his former conduct 
stood in every need of such a recom- 
mendation. The two names Tvxi-kos 
and 'Ovrjo-ipos occur in proximity in 
Phrygian inscriptions found at Alten- 
tash (Bennisoa 1) Boeckh 3857 r sq. 

Tychicus was a native of proconsu- 
lar Asia (Acts xx. 4) and perhaps of 
Ephesus (2 Tim. iv. 12: see Philippi- 
ans p. 11). He is found with St Paul 
at three different epochs in his life, 
(i) He accompanied him when on 
his way eastward at the close of the 
third missionary journey A.D. 58 (Acts 
XX. 4), and probably like Trophimus 
(Acts xxi. 29) went with him to Jeru- 
salem (for the words axpt ttjs 'Aalas 
must be struck out in Acts xx. 4). It 
is probable indeed that Tychicus, to- 
gether with others mentioned among 
St Paul's numerous retinue on this 
occasion, was a delegate appointed by 
his own church according to the Apo- 
stle's injunctions (i Cor. xvi. 3, 4) to 



[IT. 8 

TTtJTOS dheX<pO^ KUL TTIG'TO^ diaK0V09 KUl CbpdovXo^ 6U 

Kvpiu)' ^ov eVeyU-v/^a 7rpo9 vjua^ €i<s avro tovto, 'li/a 

bear the contributions of his brethren 
to the poor Christians of Judsea; and 
if so, he may possibly be the person 
commended as the brother ov 6 eirai- 

vos (V rw euayyeX/o) hia Tracrav rap eK- 
kXtjiticov (2 Cor. viii. i8): but this will 
depend on the interpretation of the 
best supported reading in Acts xx. 5 

ovToi 8e TTpoafXdovTfS e'fievov T]nas fv 
TpcoaSi. (2) We find Tychicus again 
in St Paul's company at the time ^^'ith 
which we are immediately concerned, 
when this epistle was written, proba- 
bly towards the end of the first Ro- 
man captivity, a.d. 62, 63 (see Philip- 
jnans p. 31 sq.). (3) Once more, at the 
close of St Paul's life (about a.d. 67), 
he appears again to have associated 
himself with the Apostle, when his 
name is mentioned in connexion with 
a mission to Crete (Tit. iii. 12) and 
another to Ephesus (2 Tim. iv. 12). 
For the legends respecting him, which 
are shght and insignificant, see Act. 
Sanct. Boll. April 29 (iii. p. 619). 

Tychicus is not so common a name 
as some others which occur in the 
New Testament, e. g. Onesimus, Tro- 
phimus; but it is found occasionally 
iu inscriptions belonging to Asia Mi- 
nor, e.g. Boeckh G. I. 2918, 3665, 
[3857 c], 3857 r, (comp. 3865 i, etc.); 
and persons bearing it are commemo- 
rated on the coins of both Magnesia 
ad Maeandrum (jMionnet in. p. 153 sq., 
Siippl. VI. p. 236) and Magnesia ad 
Sipylum {ib. iv. p. 70). The name 
occurs also in Roman inscriptions; e.g. 
Muratori, pp. Dccccxvii, iicccxciv, 
MMLV. Along with several other 
proper names similarly formed, this 
word is commonly accentuated Tvxkos 
(Chandler Greek Accentuation § 255), 
and so it stands in all the critical 
editions, though according to rulo 
(Winer §vi. p. 58) it should be Tv'xiKoy. 

Ka\ Tvia-Tos K.rXi] The connexion of 
the words is not quite obvious. It 
seems best however to take iv Kvpio 

as referring to the whole clause iria-ros 
BiaKovos Koi cTvvbovXos rather than to 
avv8ov\os alone: for (i) The two sub- 
stantives are thus bound together by 
the preceding ma-Tos and the following 
eV Kvplat in a natural way: (2) The at- 
tachment of (V KvpLCO to TTiaros Siaxo- 
vos is suggested by the parallel pas- 
sage Ephes. vi. 21 Tvxckos 6 aya-nr]Tos 
ade\cj)os Kol Tricrros BtaKovos iv Kvpico. 
The question of connecting iv Kvpico 
with ddfXcjios as well need not be en- 
tertained, since the idea of ddeXcpos, 
' a Christian brother,' is complete in 
itself: see the note on Phil. i. 14. The 
adjective tj-lcttos will here have its 
passive sense, ' trustworthy, stedfast,' 
as also iu ver. 9 : see Galatians p. 
154 sq. 

biaKovos] ' mmister,^ hnt to whom? 
To the churches, or to St Paid him- 
self? The following avvBovXos sug- 
gests the latter as the prominent idea 
here. So in Acts xix. 22 Timothy and 
Erastus are described as Suo rav 8ia- 
KovovvTwv avTw. Tychicus himself also 
was one of several who ministered to 
St Paid about that same time (Acts 
XX. 4). It is not probable however, 
that ^iOKovos has here its strict ofiicial 
sense, 'a deacon,' as in Rom, xvi. i, 
Phil. i. I, I Tim. iii. 8, 12. 

o-y'i'SovXos] The word does not oc- 
cur elsewhere in St Paul, except in 
i. 7, where it is said of Epaphras. It is 
probably owing to the fact of St Paul's 
applying the term in both these pas- 
sages to persons whom he calls 8ia/co- 
voi, that (xivbovKos seems to have been 
adopted as a customary form of ad- 
dress in the early Church on the part 
of a bishop, when speaking of a deacon. 
In the Ignatian letters for instance, 
the term is never used except of dea- 
cons ; Ephes. 2, Magn. 2, Philad. 4, 
Smyrn. 12. Where the martyr has 
occasion to speak of a bishop or a 
presbyter some other designation is 
used instead. 

IV. 9] 



\ f -^ 

'yvuiTe Ta rrepi tjiuLcov kui Trap 
^orvv 'Ov)](riiuiip tio ttlcttm 
ecTLV ep vjuwu. Travra vjuui/ 

8. e7rffi\lra] * / send,' or * / Mve 
sent,' enffi'^a being the epistolary 
aorist; see the note on 'iypa^a, Gal. 
vi. II. Tychicus appears to have ac- 
companied the letter itself. For simi- 
lar instances of the epistolary eneji-^a, 
iniOTTfCKa, etc., see 2 Cor. viii. i8, 22, 
ix. 3, Ephes. vi. 22, Phil. ii. 25, 28, 
Philem. 11, Hebr. xiii. 22, Polyc. 
Phil. 13. 

yva>Ti TO. Trepl Tj/icu:/] This must be 
preferred to the received reading, yva 
TO Tj-epl vpau, for two independent 
reasons, (i) The preponderance of 
ancient authority is decidedly in its 
favour. (2) The emphatic eh avro 
rovTo Iva seems imperatively to de- 
mand it. St Paul in the context 
twice states tlie object of Tychicus' 
visit to be that the Colossians might 
be informed about the Apostle's own 
doings, Ta KUT epe navra yvcopicni vplv 
(ver. 7), and navTa vplv yvatplaovcriv to. 
(ode. He could hardly therefore have 
desci'ibed ' the very purpose ' of his 
mission in the same breath as some- 
thing quite different. 

It is urged indeed, that this is a 
scribe's alteration to bring the passage 
into accordance with Ephes. vi. 21. 
But against this it may fairly be ar- 
gued that, on any hypothesis as re- 
gards the authorship and relation of 
the two letters, this strange varia- 
tion from ■yi'cGre ra nepl rjpoiv to yva 
TO. irepl vpcov in the author himself is 
improbable. On the other hand a 
transcriber was under a great temp- 
tation to substitute yva for yvcoTe ow- 
ing to the following TrapaKaXea-rj, and 
this temptation would become almost 
irresistible, if by any chance rrepl vpav 
had been written for T:ep\ rjpwv in the 
copy before him, as we find to be the 
case in some mss. See the detached 
note on various readings. 

irapaKokearrj k.t.X.] i.e. 'encourage 

Kal dyairriTw aheXcpw, os 

'yvuopio'ouoriv Ta code. 

you to persevere by his tidings and ex- 
hortations.' The phrase occurs again, 
Ephes. vi. 22, 2 Thess. ii. 17 : see above 
ii. 2. The prominent idea in all these 
passages is not comfort or consolation 
but perseverance in the right way. 

9. avv 'OpTjalpw] See above, p. ^^, 
and the introduction to the Ei:)istle to 

rw TTtoTw K.T.\.] The man whom the 
Colossians had only known hitherto, 
if they knew him at all, as a worthless 
runaway slave, is thus commended to 
them as no more a slave but a brother, 
no more dishonest and faithless but 
trustworthy, no more an object of con- 
tempt but of love; conip. Philem. 11, 

yviopicrovcTiv] This form has rather 
better support from the mss than 
yi'(opiov(Tiv : see also above iii. 25. On 
t'.ie Attic future from verbs in -i^at in 
t!ie Greek Testament generally see 
"Winer § xiii. p. 88, A. Buttmann p. 32 
sq. Is there any decisive instance of 
these Attic forms in St Paul, except in 
quotations from the Lxx (e.g. Rom. x. 
19, XV. I2)'< 

10-^14. ' I send you greeting from 
Aristarchus who is a fellow-prisoner 
with me ; from Marcus, Barnabas' 
cousin, concerning whom I have al- 
ready sent you directions, that you 
welcome him heartily, if he pays you 
a visit; and from Jesus, suruamed 
Justus; all three Hebrew converts. 
They alone of their fellow-countrymen 
have worked loyally with me in spread- 
ing the kingdom of God; and their 
stedfastness has indeed been a com- 
fort to me in the hour of trial. Greet- 
ing also from Epaphras, your feUow- 
townsman, a true servant of Christ, 
who is ever wrestling in his prayers on 
your behalf, that ye may stand firm 
in the faith, perfectly instructed and 
fully convinced in every will and pur- 



[IV. lo 

^°'Ac7ra.^6TaL vjua^ 'ApL(rTap)(^o^ 6 <TVvaL-x^fid\a}T6<s 

pose of God. I bear testimony to the 
earnestness with which he labours for 
you and the brethren of Laodicea and 
those of HierapoUs. Greeting also 
from Luke the physician, my very 
dear friend, and from l)emas.' 

lo. The salutations to Philemon 
are sent from the same persons as to 
the Colossians, except that in the 
former case the name of Jesus Justus 
is omitted, 

'Kp'itTTapxos] the Thessalonian. He 
had started with St Paul on his voy- 
age from Jerusalem to Rome, but 
probably had parted from the Apostle 
at Myra (see PhilijDpians p. 33 sq.). 
If so, he must have rejoined him 
at Rome at a later date. On this 
Aristarchus see Philippians p. 10, 
and the introduction to the Epistles 
to the Thessalonians. He would be 
well known in proconsular Asia, which 
he had visited from time to time ; 
Acts xix. 29, XX. 4, xxvii. 2. 

(Tvvaixiia\(i>Tos yiov] In Philem. 23 
this honourable title is withheld from 
Aristarchus and given to Epaphras. 
In Rom. xvi. 7 St Paul's kinsmen, 
Andronicus and Junias, are so called. 
On the possibility of its referring to a 
spiritual captivity or subjection see 
Philippians p. 1 1. In favour of this 
meaning it may be urged, that, though 
St Paul as a prisoner was tinily a SeV- 
/iios, he was not strictly an ai;(^/LidXa)roy 
'a prisoner of war'; nor could he have 
called himself so, except by a confu- 
sion of the actual and metaphorical. 
If on the other hand uvvaix\iaK(i>Tos 
refers to a physical captivity, it cannot 
easily be explained by any known fact. 
The incident in Acts xix. 29 is hardly 
adequate. The most probable solu- 
tion would be, that his relations with 
St Paul in Rome excited suspicion 
and led to a temporary confinement. 
Another possible hypothesis is that 
he voluntarily shared the Apostle's 
captivity by living with him. 

MdpKos] doubtless John Mark, who 

had been associated with St Paul in 
his earUer missionary work ; Acts xii. 
25, XV. yj sq. This commendatory 
notice is especially interesting as be- 
ing the first mention of him since the 
separation some twelve years before, 
Acts XV. 39. In the later years of the 
Apostle's life he entirely effaced the 
unfavourable impression left by his 
earlier desertion ; 2 Tim.iv. 1 1 eorij/ yap 

fjLOi evxprjcfTos els 8iaK0Viai/. 

This notice is likewise important in 
two other respects, (i) Mark appears 
here as commended to a church of 
proconsular Asia, and intending to 
visit those parts. To the churches of 
this same region he sends a salutation 
in I Pet. V. 13; and in this district 
apparently also he is found some few 
years later than the present time, 
2 Tim. iv. 1 1. (2) Mark is now resid- 
ing at Borne. His connexion with the 
metropolis appears also from i Pet. v. 
13, if BajSv'Kwv thei-e (as seems most 
probable) be rightly interpreted of 
Rome; and early tradition speaks of 
his Gospel as having been written for 
the Romans (Iren. iii. L i ; comp. 
Papias in Euseb. H. E. iii. 39). 

o a'i/e\//-i6f] ' the cousin.' The term 
dvfyj/^ioi is applied to cousins german, 
the children whether of two brothers 
or of two sisters or of a brother and 
sister, as it is carefully defined in 
Pollux iii. 28. This writer adds that 
avraveyp-ioi means neither more nor 
less than dveylrioi. As a synomTuo 
we find f'^dSeXc^oj, which however is 
condemned as a vulgarism; Phryn. 
p. 306 (ed. Lobeck). Many instances of 
dveyp'i.oi are found in different authors 
of various ages (e.g. Herod, vii. 5, 82, 
ix, 10, Thucyd. i. 132, Plato Charm. 
154 B, Gorg. 471 B, Andoc. de Myst. 
§ 47, Isaeus Hagn. Her. § 8 sq., 
Demosth. c. Ifacart. § 24, 27, etc., 
Dion. Hal. A.E. i. 79, Plut. Fit. Thcs. 
7, Vit. Cacs. I, Vit. Brut. 13, Lucian 
Dial. Mort. xxix. i, Hegesipp. in 
Euseb. H. E. iv. 22), where the rela- 

lY. lo] 



jULOVf Kal MapKO^ 6 di/eyjyio's ^apva.(ia, Tvepl ov i\af3eTe 

tionship is directly defined or already 
known, and there is no wavering as to 
the meaning. This sense also it lias in 
tlie Lxx, Num. xxxvi. 11. In very late 
writers however (e.g. lo. Malalas 
Chron. xvii. p. 424, lo. Damasc. ado. 
Const. Cab. 1 2, 11. p. 62 1 ; but in Theodt, 
//. E. V. 39, which is also quoted by 
E. A. Sophocles Gr. Lex. s. v. for 
this meaning, the text is doubtful) 
the word comes to be used for a 
nephew, properly aSeX^iSovs; and 
to this later use the rendering of 
our English versions must be traced. 
The German translations also (Luther 
and the Zurich) have 'Neffe.' The 
earliest of the ancient versions (Latin, 
SjTiac, Egyptian) seem all to translate 
it correctly ; not so in every case ap- 
parently the later. There is no reason 
to suppose that St Paul would or 
could have used it in any other than 
its proper sense. St Mark's relation- 
ship with Barnabas may have been 
through his mother Mary, who is men- 
tioned Acts xii. 12. The incidental 
notice here explains why Barnabas 
should have taken a more favourable 
view of Mark's defection than St 
Paul, Acts XV. 2,7 — 39- Tlie notices in 
this passage and in 2 Tim. iv. 1 1 show 
that Mark had recovered the Apo- 
stle's good opinion. The studious re- 
commendation of St Mark in both 
passages indicates a desire to efface 
the unfavourable impression of the 

The name of Mark occurs in five 
difierent relations, as (i) The early 
disciple, John Mark, Acts xii. 12, 25, 
XV. 39 ; (2) The later companion of St 
Paul, here and Philem. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 
II; (3) The companion and ' son ' of 
St Peler, i Pet. v. 13 ; (4) The evan- 
gelist ; (5) The bishop of Alexandria. 
Out of these notices some writers get 
three or even four distinct persons 
(see the note of Cotelier on Apost. 
Const, ii. 57). Even Tillemont {Mem. 
Eccl. II. p. 89 sq., 503 sq.) assumes two 

Marks, supposing (i) (2) to refer to 
one person, and (3) (4) (5) to another. 
His main reason is that he cannot 
reconcile the notices of the first with 
the tradition (Euseb. H. E. ii. 15, 16) 
that St Mark the evangelist accom- 
panied St Peter to Rome in a.d. 43, 
having first preached the Gospel in 
Alexandria (p. 515). To most persons 
liowever this early date of St Peter's 
visit to Rome will appear quite ir- 
reconcilable with the notices in the 
Apostolic writings, and therefore 
with them Tillemont's argument will 
carry no weight. But in fact Euse- 
bius does not say, either that St Mark 
went with St Peter to Rome, or that 
he had preached in Alexandria before 
this. The Scriptural notices suggest 
that the same Mark is intended in all 
the occurrences of the name, for they 
are connected together by personal 
links (Peter, Paul, Barnabas); and the 
earliest forms of tradition likewise 
identify them. 

Bapva^a] On the affectionate tone 
of St Paul's language, whenever he 
mentions Barnabas after the colli- 
sion at Antioch (Gal. ii. 11 sq.) and 
the separation of missionary spheres 
(Acts XV. 39), see the note on Gal. ii. 
13. It has been inferred from the 
reference here, that inasmuch as Mark 
has rejoined St Paul, Barnabas must 
Lave died before this epistle was 
written (about A. D. 63) ; and this has 
been used as an argument against 
the genuineness of the letter bear- 
ing his name (Hefele Sendschr. d. 
Apost. Barnab. p. 29 sq.); but this 
argument is somewhat precarious. 
From I Cor. ix. 6 we may infer that 
he was still living, a.d. 57. The 
notices bearing on the biography of 
Barnabas are collected and discussed 
by Hefele, p. i sq. 

ika^tre ivroXas] These injunctions 
must have been communicated pre- 
viously either by letter or by word of 
mouth : for it cannot be a question 



[lY. II 

evTo\a<if 'Eaj/ eXdr^ ttjOo? iJ^a?, he^acrOe avTOV, " Kat 
'hjcov^ 6 XeyoiuLevo's 'Iovcttos, ol ovre<s 6k 7r€pLTo/ur]<s' 
ouTOL fJiOVOL (TwepyoL ei? t}]v (^aoriXeiav tov Qeov, oltlv6^ 

here of an epistolary aorist. The 
natural inference is, that they were 
sent by St Paul himself, and not by 
any one else, e.g. by St Peter or St 
Barnabas, as some have suggested. 
Thus the notice points to earlier com- 
munications between the Apostle and 

But what was their tenour ? It 
seems best to suppose that this is 
given in the next clause iav eXdrj 
K.T.X. By an abrupt change to the 
oratio recta the injunction is repeat- 
ed as it was delivered; comp. Ps. 

CV (civ). 15 vXey^ei' vrrep avrav /3a- 

o-tXeis" M/j d\l^r)ad€ k.t.X. After verbs 
signifying ' to command, charge, etc.,' 
there is a tendency to pass from the 
oblique to the direct; e.g. Luke v, 14, 
Acts i. 4, xxiii. 22, The reading 8e- 
$aadai gives the right sense, but can 
hardly be coiTect. If this construc- 
tion be not accepted, it is vain to 
speculate what may have been the 
tenour of the injunction. 

II. Ka\ 'Irjaovs] He is not men- 
tioned elsewhere. Even in the Epi- 
stle to Philemon his name is omitted. 
Probably he was not a man of any 
prominence in the Church, but his 
personal devotion to the Apostle 
prompted this iionourable mention. 
Por the story which makes him bishop 
of Eleutheropolis in Palestine, see Le 
Quien Oriens Christ, in. p. 633. 

'loCcTToy] A common name or sur- 
name of Jews and proselytes, denot- 
ing obedience and devotion to the 
law. It is applied to two persons in 
the New Testament, besides tliis Je- 
sus; (i) Joseph Barsabbas, Acts i. 23; 
(2) A proselyte at Corinth, Acts xviii. 
7. It occurs twice in the list of early 
Jewish Christian bishops of Jerusa- 
lem, in Euseb. H. E. iii. 35, iv. 5. It 
was borne by a Jew of Tiberias who 
^vrote the history of the Jewish war 

(Joseph. Vit. §§ 9, 65), and by a son 
of the historian Josephus himself {ib. 
§1). It occurs in the rabbinical writ- 
ings (t^ODV or ^UD"l^ Schottgen on 
Acts i. 23, Zunz Judennatnen p. 20), 
and in monumental inscriptions from 
Jewish cemeteries in various places 
(Boeckh G. I. no. 9922, 9925 ; Revue 
Archeologique i860, 11. p. 348; Gar- 
rucci Dissertazioni Archeologiche 11. 
p. 1 82). So also the corresponding 
female name Justa (Garrucci I. c. p. 
180}. In Gem. Horn. ii. 19, iii. 72,, iv. 
I, xiii. 7, the Syi'ophcenician woman 
of the Gospels is named 'loCora, 
doubtless because she is represented 
in this Judaiziug romance as a prose- 
lytess {npoa-qkvTos xiii. 7) who strictly 
observes the Mosaic ordinances {rf)v 
vofjLifiov dvadf^afievTi TroAiTttai' ii. 20), 
and is contrasted with the heathen 
'dogs' {tu i'dvT] eoLKora Kvcriv ii. 19) 
Avho disregard them. In some cases 
Justus might be the only name of the 
person, as a Latin rendering of the 
Hebrew Zadok; while in others, as 
here and in Acts i. 23, it is a surname. 
Its Greek equivalent, o 8iKaios, is the 
recognised epithet of James the Lord's 
brother: see Galalians, i). 348. 

ol ovTfs K.r.X.] i.e. 'converts from 
Judaism' (see the note Gal. ii. 12), 
or perhaps ' belonging to the Cir- 
cumcision'; but in this latter case 
irepiToixrjs, though without the article, 
must be used in a concrete sense, 
like TTJs TTepiTOfi^s, for 'the Jews.' 
Of Mark and of Jesus the fact is 
plain from their name or their con- 
nexions. Of Aristarchus we could not 
have inferred a Jewish origin, inde- 
pendently of this direct statement. 

fjLovoi] i.e. of the Jewish Christians 
in Rome. On this antagonism of the 
converts from the Circumcision in the 
metropolis, see Philippiatis p. 16 sq. 
The words however must not be closely 

IV. 12] 



eyevridricrau juol Trapriyopia. ^^dcTTra^eraL vfjia^ 'R7ra(ppa<s 
6 ep vfiwv, ZovXo'i \pLcrTou 'hjo'ouj TravTore dycoviVo- 
jueuos VTrep vfj.wv ev Taj's 7rpoG'6V)(^aT<5, \ua cTTaOrJTe re- 

pressed, as if absolutely no Jewish 
Christian besides had remained friend- 
ly; they will only imply that among 
the more prominent members of 
the body the Apostle can only name 
these three as stedfast in their alle- 
giance: comp. Phil. ii. 20 ovdeva exoi 
la-oyl/'vxov ... Travres yap k.t.X. (with 
the note). 
TTjv jBaaiXeiav k.t.X.] See the note on 

i. 13. 

otnves K.T.\.] 'men whom I found 
etc.'; comp. Acts xxviii. 15 ovs tScoi/ 
o naCXor evxipio-Trjaas rw Gew eXa^ev 
6dpa-os, and see Philippians p. 17. 
For oLTivii, not specifying the indi- 
viduals, but referring them to their 
class characteristics, see the notes on 
Gal. iv. 24, V. 19, Phil. iii. 7, iv. 3. 

TTap^yopia] ' encouragement,' ' com- 
fort.' The range of meaning in this 
word is even wider than in napapv- 
6ia or TTapa.KKr](jLs (see the note Phil. 
ii. i). The vei-b irap-qyopdv denotes 
either (i) ' to exhort, encourage' (He- 
rod. V. 104, ApoU. Rhod. ii. 64) ; 
(2) ' to dissuade ' (Herod, ix. 54, 55); 
(3) * to appease,' ' quiet ' (Plut. Vit. 
Pomp. 13, ATor. p. "jyj c); or (4) 'to 
console, comfort ' (Aesch. Eum. S07). 
The word however, and its derivates 

napriyopla, Traprjyoprjpa, TraprjyopiKOs, 
■Kaprjyopr^riKos, were used especially as 
medical terms, in the sense of 'as- 
suaging,' 'alleviating'; e.g. Hippocr. 
PP- 392, 393, 394, Galen xiv. p. 335, 
446, Plut. Alor. pp. 43 D, 142 D ; and 
perhaps owing to this usage, the idea 
of consolation, comfort, is on the whole 
predominant in. tlie word ; e. g. Plut. 

Mor. p. 56 A Tos eVt rois dTvx^po.(Ti 
irap-qyopias, p. 1 18 A Tots' d(paipovpevois 
ras XvTTas 8ia Tijs yevvalas Koi crtpviis 
irap-qyopias, Vit. Cim. 4 in\ Tvap^yopla 

Tov TTevdovs. In i'lut. Mor. p. 599 b 
irapt]yopia and (xvvi]yopla are contrast- 

ed, as the right and wrong me- 
thod of dealing with the sorrows of 
the exile; and the former is said to 
be the part of men Trappqcna^opivav 
/cat biba(TK.6vT<i>v oTi TO Xvneiadai koL 
TaTreivovv euvTov eVi navrl p.ev uxpr)- 
arov ecrri k.t.X. 

12. 'E7Ta(f)pas] His full name would 
be Epaphroditus, but he is always 
called by the shortened form Epa- 
phras, and must not be confused with 
the Philippian Ejiaphroditus (see Phi- 
lijjpians p. 60), who also was with St 
Paul at one period of his Roman 
captivity. Of Epaphras, as the Evan- 
gelist of Colossie, and perhaps of the 
neighbouring towns, see above, pp. 29 
sq., 34 sq. ^ 

e^ vpatv] ' who belongs to you,' 
' who is one of you^ i. e. a native, or 
at least an inhabitant, of Colossce, as 
in the case of Onesimus ver. 9 ; comp. 
Acts iv. 6, xxi. 8, Rom. xvi. 10, 11, 
I Cor. xii. 16, Phil. iv. 22, etc. 

hoZXos X. 'I.] This title, which the 
Apostle uses several times of himself, 
is not elsewhere conferred on any 
other individual, except once on 
Timothy (Phil. i. i), and probably 
points to exceptional services in the 
cause of the Gospel on the part of 

a-yojftfo/xei/oy] ' wrestling ' ; comp. 
Rom. XV. 3*^ uvvayatvlaaaBai p.01 iv 
Tals vpoaevxals. See also the great 
dycovla of prayer in Luke xxii. 44. 
Comp. Justin Apol. ii. 13 (p. 51 b) 
Koi (vxipevos Koi Trappaxcos dycuj/t^o- 
pevos. See also i. 29, ii. i, with the 

crra^fJTe] ' standfast,' doubtless the 
correct reading rather than o-r^re 
Avluch the received text has; comp. 
Matt. ii. 9, xxvii. 11, where also the 
received text substitutes the weaker 



[IV. 13 

XeiOL Kai 7re7r\ripo(pop}]iuevoL ev Travri deXyjiuan tov 
Qeov. ^^ fxapTvpco yap avTM oti ex^i ttoXvv ttovov virep 

Tre7r\r]po(f)opr]fievoi] '^ fully persuad- 
ed.' The verb TrXr/po^opetx' has several 
senses, (i) ' To fulfil, accomplish' ; 2 
Tim. iv. 5 T^" biaKoviav aov TrXrjpo- 
(f)6pT](Tov, jb. ver. ij t6 Kifpvy/xa ttXtj- 
pocjioprjdrj, Clem. Horn. xix. 24 Tren-X?;- 
po(popT]fjiev(ov vvu rjdrj rpiav rjjj.fpa)V. 

So perhaps Hermas Sim. 2 Trkrjpo^o- 

povcri TOV ttXovtov auTcof ... ttXtjpo^o- 
povai ras -^vxas avTav, though it is a 

little difficult to carry the same seuse 
into tlie latter clause, where the word 
seems to sig7iify rathfel- 'to satisfy.' 
(2) 'To persuade fully, to convince'; 

Rom. iv, 21 7rXrjpo(popr]6f\s OTI o (TT-qy- 
yiKrai. ^vvaros icrriv Kai Troirjcrai, xiv. 
5 ev T<5 tSt'o) VOL Tr\r]pncf)opfia0a>, Clem. 
Rom. 42 7rXr]po(})opT]6iVTes Sta rrji dva- 
orao-ecos k.t.'K., Ign, Magn. 8 els TO 
n\r]po(f)opr]6rjvai Toiis (iTreLdovvTas, ib. 1 1 
ireTr\rjpo(^oprj(T6ai iv TJj yevvrj(T(i k.t.X., 
Plulad. inscr. ev t^ dvacrTocrei avToii 
TreTrXrjpocpoprjfievr] ev navTi. eXeei, Smym, 
I TreTr\T]po(l)oprj[X€vovs els tov Kvpiov 
TjpLaiv, Mart. Ign. 7 jfXrjpocfiopfjcTai tovs 
dadevels i^ fVi toIs rrpoyeyovucriv, 
Clem. Horn. Ep. ad lac. 10 TrenXr]po(f)o- 

pTjfjLevos OTi eic Qeov diKniov, ib. xvii. 
13, 14) ^IX. 24 (TVveTtdefirjv &5f irXrjpo- 

^opovfievos. So too Lxx Eccles. viii. 1 1 
enXrjpocpop-qdT] Kapdia tov Tiuifjaai to 
7Toi'T]p6i'. (3) 'To fill'; Rom. xv. 13 ttXt;- 
po(f)op^(Tat naarjs xapar(a doubtful 
V.l.),Clem. Rom. 54 riVTrejrX 7;po0opr;/iie'- 
vos dyawrjs ', Test, xii Pair. Dan 2 T7 
TrXeove^la e7rXr]po(j)opi]&T]v TTJsdvaipecrecos 

avTov, where it means * I was filled 
with,' i. e. 'I was fully bent on,' a 
sense closely allied to the last. From 
this accoimt it will be seen that there 
is in the usage of the word no 
justification for translating it 'most 
surely believed' in Luke 1. i tmv 
7renXTjpo(f)opT]nevaiv ev rjfxiv TrpayfiaTcov, 
and it should therefore be rendered 
' fulfilled, accomplished.' The word 
is almost exclusively biblical and ec- 
clesiastical ; and it seems clear that 
the passage from Ctesias in Photius 

{Sibl. 72) TToXXoIs XoyOlS KoX OpKOlS 

TrXTjpo(j}op^(TavTes Meyd^v^ov Is not 
quoted with verbal exactness. In 
Isocr. Trapez. § 8 the word is now 
expunged from the text on the autho- 
rity of the Mss. For the substantive 
TrXr]po(f)op[a see the note on ii. 2 above. 
The reading of the received text here, 
nenXTjpcofievoi, must be rejected as of 
inferior authority. 

ev iravrl k.t.X.] 'in evet'y thing 
willed by God'; comp. i Kings ix. 11. 
So the plural to. OeXijpoTa in Acts 
xiii. 22, Ephes. ii. 3, and several times 
in the lxx. The words are best con- 
nected directly with 7T€irXr]po(f>opr]p.€voi.. 
The passages quoted in the last note 
amply illustrate this construction. The 
preposition may denote (i) The abode 
of the conviction, as Rom. xiv. 5 ev ra 
Idia vot; or (2) The object of the 
conviction, as Ign. Magn. 11 iv Tjj 

yevvrjaei, Philad. inSCr. iv Trj dvaaTa- 
crei ; or (3) The atmosphere, the 
suiToundings, of the conviction, as 
Philad. inscr. iv Tvavri iXiei. This 
last seems to be its sense here. The 
connexion (TTa6'nTe...iv, though legiti- 
mate in itself (Rom. v. 2, i Cor. xv. 
i), is not favoured by the order of 
the words here. 

13. TvoXvv ttovov'] 'much toil,' both 
inward and outward, though from the 
connexion the former notion seems to 
predominate, as in dywva ii. i ; comp. 
Plat. Phaedr. p. 247 b novos re kuX 
dycoj/ eaxciTos '^vxjj nponenai. Of the 
two variations which transcribers 
have substituted for the correct read- 
ing ^^Xoi' emphasizes the former idea 
and KOTvov the latter. The true read- 
ing is more expressive than either. 
The word ttovos however is very 
rare in the New Testament (occur- 
ring only Rev. xvi. 10, 11, xxi. 4, 
besides this passage), and was there- 
fore liable to be changed. 

Koi TtSy K.T.X.] The neighbouring 
cities are taken in their geographical 

IV. 14] 



v/uLcoi/ Kai Ttov ev AaodiKia Kal Tcav eV 'lepaTToXei, 

^^ da'TrdVeTaL vfjia<s Aovku^ d iaTpo<: 6 dyairriTO^, Kal 


order, commencing from Colossse; see 
above, p. 2. Epapliras, though a Co- 
lossiau, may have 'been the evangelist 
of the two larger cities also. 

AaobiKia] This form has not the same 
overwhelming preponderance of au- 
thority in its favour here and in vv. 
15, 16, as in ii. i, but is probably cor- 
rect in all these places. It is quite 
possible however, that the same per- 
son would write AaodiKia and AaoStxeta 
Indifierently. Even the form Aao- 
diKTja is found in Mionnet, Suppl. vii. 
p. 581. Another variation is the con- 
traction of AaoS- into AaS-; e.g. Aa- 
8iKT]v6s, which occurs frequently in the 
edict of Diocletian. 

14. Aou/cas] St Luke had travelled 
with St Paul on his last journey to 
Jerusalem (Acts xxi. i sq). He 
had also accompanied him two 
years later from Jerusalem to Rome 
(Acts xxvii. 2 sq.). And now again, 
probably after another interval of two 
years (see Philippians p. 31 sq.), we 
find him in the Apostle's company. 
It is not probable that he remained 
■with St Paul in the meanwhile {Phil- 
ippians, p. 35), and this will account 
for his name not occurring in the 
Epistle to the Philippians. He was 
at the Apostle's side again in his 
second captivity (2 Tim. iv. 11). 

Lucas is doubtless a contraction 
of Lucanus. Several Old Latin mss 
write out the name Lucanus in the 
superscription and subscription to the 
Gospel, just as elsewhere Apollos is 
written in full Apollonius. On the 
frequent occurrence of this name Lu- 
canus in inscriptions see Ephem. 
Epigr. 11. p. 28 (1874). The shortened 
form Lucas however seems to be 
rare. He is here distinguished from 
04 ovm i.K TrepLTOfirjs (ver. ii). This 
alone is fatal to his identification 
(mentioned as a tradition by Origen 

ad loc) with the Lucius, St Paul's 
'kinsman' (i.e. a Jew; see Philip)- 
pians pp. 17, 171, 173), who sends 
a salutation from Corinth to Rome 
(Rom. xvi. 21). It is equally fatal to 
the somewhat later tradition that ho 
was one of the seventy {Dial. c. Mai-c. 
§ I in Orig. Op. I. p. 806, ed. De la 
Rue ; Epiphan. I/aer. Ii. 1 1). The iden- 
tification with Lucius of Gyrene (Acts 
xiii. 13) is possible but not probable. 
Though the example of Patrobius for 
Patrobas(Rom.xvi. 14) shows thatsuch 
a contraction is not out of the ques- 
tion, yet probability and testimony 
alike point to Lucanus, as the longer 
form of the Evangelist's name. 

o larpos] Indications of medical 
knowledge have been traced both in 
the third Gospel and in the Acts ; see 
on this point Smith's Voyage and 
Shipwreck of St Paul p. 6 sq. (ed. 2). 
It has been observed also, that St 
Luke's first appearance in company 
with St Paul (Acts xvi. 10) nearly syn- 
chronizes with an attack of the Apo- 
stle's constitutional malady (Gal. iv. 
13, 14); so that he may have joined 
him partly in a professional capacity. 
This conjecture is perhaps borne out 
by the personal feeling wliich breathes 
in the following 6 ayan-qroi. But 
whatever may be thought of these 
points, there is no ground for ques- 
tioning the ancient belief (Iren. iii. 14. 
I sq.) that the physician is also the 
Evangelist. St Paul's motive in spe- 
cifying him as the Physician may not 
have been to distinguish him from any 
other bearing the same name, but to 
emphasize his own obligations to his 
medical knowledge. The name in this 
form does not appear to have been 
common. The tradition that St Luke 
was a painter is quite late (Niceph. 
Call. ii. 43). It is worthy of notice 
that the two Evangelists are men- 



[IV. 15, 16 

^^'AcTTraa-ao-Oe tovs ev AaodiKla ddeXcpou^ Kcti Niy/i- 
(pav Kai TYiv KUT OLKOv avTwv 6KK\r]G-iav. ^^Kat oTav 

tioned together in this context, as also 
in Philem. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 1 1. 

d ayaTTTjTos] ' the heloved one^ not to 
be closely connected with 6 larpos, for 
d dyaTTTjTos is Complete in itself ; comp. 
Philem. i, Rom. xvi. 12 (comp. vv. 5, 
8} 9), 3 Joh. I. For the form compare 
the exj^ression in the Gospels, Matt. 

iii. 17? etc. d vlos [J-ov, 6 dyaTrrjros k.t.X. ; 
where a comparison of Is. xlii. i, as 
quoted in Matt. xii. 18, seems to show 
that d dyaiTTjTos k.t.X. forms a distinct 
clause from 6 vlos fiov.'] On the probability that this 
person was a Thessalonian (2 Tim. iv. 
10) and that his name was Demetrius, 
see the introduction to the Epistles to 
the Thessalonians. He appears in 
close connexion with St Luke in Philem. 
24, as here. In 2 Tim. iv. 10 their 
conduct is placed in direct contrast, 
ArjuasfJif eyKareXiirev. . .Aoi' Kas fcrTiv \x6- 
vos tier (fj.ov. There is perhaps a fore- 
shadowing of this contrast in the lan- 
guage here. "While Luke is described 
with special tenderness as d larpos, 6 
dyanrjTos, Demas alone is dismissed 
with a bare mention and without any 
epithet of commendation. 

15 — 17. ' Greet from me the bre- 
thren who are in Laodicea, especially 
Nymphas, and the church which as- 
sembles in their house. And when 
this letter has been read among vou, 
take care that it is read also in the 
Church of the Laodiceans, and be sure 
that ye also read the letter which I 
have sent to Laodicea, and which ye 
will get from them. Moreover give 
this message from me to Archippus ; 
Take heed to the ministry which thou 
hast received from me in Christ, and 
discharge it fully and faithfully.' 

1 5. Nv/;i0aj'] As the context shows, 
an inhabitant of Laodicea. The name 
in full would probably be Nymphodo- 
rus, as Artemas (Tit. iii. 12) for Arte- 
midorus, Zenas (Tit. iii. 13) for Zeno- 

dorus, Theudas (Acts v. 16) for The- 
odoras, Olympas (Rom. xvL 15) for 
Olympiodorus, and probably Hennas 
(Rom. xvi. 14) for Hermodorus (see 
Philippians,^. 174). Other names in 
as occurring in the Xew Testament 
and representing different termina- 
tions are AmpUas (Ampliatus, a v. I.), 
Antipas (Antipater), Demas (Deme- 
trius ?), Epaphras (Epaphroditus), Lu- 
cas (Lucanus), Parmenas (Parme- 
nides), Patrobas (Patrobius), Silas 
(Sylvanus), Stephanas (Stephanepho- 
rus), and perhaps Junias (Junianus, 
Rom. xvi. 7). For a collection of 
names with this contraction, found in 
different places, see Chandler Greek 
Accentuation § 34 ; comp. Lobeck Pa- 
thol, p. 505 sq. Some remarkable 
instances are found in the inscrip- 
tions; e.g. 'Ao-KXar, ArjixoaBas, Aiofias, 
'Epfxoyas, Ntico/iaj, 'Ovrjcras, Tpo^ay, 

etc.; seeesp. Boeckh C.I. in, pp. 1072, 
1097. The name Nymphodorus is 
found not unfrequently ; e. g. Herod, 
vii. 137, Thuc. ii. 29, Athen. i. p. 19 f, 
vi. p. 265 c, Mionuet Suppl. vi. p. 88, 
Boeckh C.I. no. 158, etc. The con- 
tracted form Nv/i0af however is very 
rare, though it occurs in an Athenian 
inscription, Boeckh C. I. 269 ^wcjias, 
and apparently also in a Spartan, 
ib. 1240 Ei;7-v;^oj Isvvipa. In Murat. 
JiDxxxv. 6, is an inscription to one N'u. 
Aquilius Nymphas, a freedman, where 
the dative is Nympihadi. Other 
names from which Nymphas might 
be contracted are Nymphius, Nymphi- 
cus, Nymphidius, Nymphodotus, the 
first and last being the most common. 
Those, who read avrr^s in the fol- 
lowing clause, take it as a woman's 
name {Nvp.(j)av, not Ni;//0ai') ; and the 
name Nymphe, Nynipha, Nympa, etc., 
occurs from time to time in Latin 
inscriptions; e.g. C. I. L. 11. 1099, 
1783, 3763, ni. 525, V. 607, etc. Mura- 

tor. CMXXIV. I, MCLIX. 8, MCCXCV. 9, 

IV. 1 6] 



dvayvfjoaOfj Trap' vfjuv t] eViCTToA.;/, 7roir]craTe 'iva Kal 

MDXCi. 3. But a Doric form of the 
Greek name here seems in the highest 
degree improbable. 

Trjv KoT oiKov K.T.X.] The samo ex- 
pression is used of Prisca and Aquila 
both at Rome (Rom. xvi. 5) and at 
Ephesus (i Cor. xvi. 19), and also of 
Philemon, whether at Colossfe or at 
Laodicea is somewhat uncertain (Phi- 
lem. 2); COmp. Acts xii. 12 rrjv olnlav rJjs 
Mapias--ov rjcrav LKavoi (Tvvrjdpoicrfievoi 
Koi npoaevx^ojifvoi., and see Philip2)i- 
ans p. 56. Perhaps similar gather- 
ings may be implied by the expres- 
sions in Rom. xvi. 14, 15 rovs avv av- 
rnis a8eX<fiovs, tovs (tvv avTols rravras 
dyiovs (Probst KircJdiche Disciplin 
p. 182, 1873). See also Act. Mart. 
Justin. § 3 (n. p. 262 ed. Otto), Clem. 
Recogn. x. 7 1 ' Theophilus . . ■ domus 
suae ingentem basiJicam ecclesiae no- 
mine consecraret' (where the word 
'basilica' was probably introduced 
by the translator Ruffinus). Of the 
same kind must have been the ' colle- 
gium quod est in domo Sergiae Pau- 
linae ' (de Rossi Roma Sotterranea i. 
p. 209) ; for the Christians were first 
recognised by the Roman Government 
as ' collegia ' or burial clubs, and pro- 
tected by this recognition doubtless 
held their meetings for religious wor- 
ship. There is no clear example of a 
separate building set apart for Chris- 
tian worship within the limits of the 
Roman empire before the third cen- 
tury, though apartments in private 
houses might be specially devoted to 
this purpose. This, I think, appears 
as a negative result from the passages 
collected in Bingham viii. i. 13 and 
Probst p. 181 sq. with a diflferent view. 
Hence the places of Christian assem- 
bly were not commonly called vao'i till 
quite late (Ignat. Magn. 7 is not 
really an exception), but olmi 0eo{), 
oiKoi iKKKr](riQiv^ otfcoi ivKTr]pioi, and the 
like (Euseb. H. E. vii. 30, viii. 13, 
ix. 9, etc.). 

avT&v] The difficulty of this read- 


ing has led to the two corrections, av- 
Tov and avTrji, of which the former 
appears in the received text, and the 
latter is supported by one or two very 
ancient authorities. Of these alter- 
native readings however, avrov is con- 
demned by its simplicity, and avV^y 
has arisen from the form l^vixcj)av, 
which prima facie would look like a 
woman's name, and yet hardly can be 
so. We should require to know more 
of the circumstances to feel any con- 
fidence in explaining avrav. A sim- 
ple explanation is that avrav denotes 
' Nymphas and his friends,' by a trans- 
ition which is common in classical 
writers; e.g. Xen. Anab. iii. 3. 7 rrpoa-- 
Tjei p.ev {Midpi,8aTr]s)...'7Tpos rouy "EXXtj- 
vas' errel S' eyyvs iyevovro k.t.\., iv. 
5. 33 f'""^' ^' ffXBov Tvpos Xeipto-0001/, 
KareXafx^avov Koi (Keivovs aKrjvovv- 

ras : see also Kuhner Gramm. §371 
(ir. p. 77), Bernhardy Syntax p. 288. 
Or perhaps tovs iv Aao8iKia d8eX(f)ovs 
may refer not to the whole body of the 
Laodicean Church, but to a family of 
Colossian Christians established in 
Laodicea. Under any circumstances 
this eKKXrjcrla is only a section of 7 
AaoSi<€coi/ eKKXrja-ia mentioned in ver. 
16. On the authorities for the vari- 
ous readings see the detached note. 

16. j; eVicrroXTj] ' the letter,' which 
has just been concluded, for these 
salutations have the character of a 
postscript; comp. Rom. xvi. 22 Tep- 
Tios 6 ypa\lfas rfjv tnia-ToXijv, 2 Thess. 
iii. 14 Sta rrjs eTria-ToXrjs, Mart. PohjC. 
20 Tr]v iTTKTToXfjv Siairep-^lraade. Such 
examples however do not countenance 
the explanation which refers eypa\p-o 
vfjuv ev Tjj eTna-ToXfj in I Cor. v. 9 to 
the First Epistle itself, occurring (as 
it does) in the middle of the letter 
(comp. 2 Cor. vii. 8). 

Troii](raTe iva] 'cause that'; so John 
xi. 37, Apoc. xiii. 15. In such cases 
the Ifa is passing away from its earlier 
sense of design to its later sense 
of result. A corresponding classical 




[IV. 17 

iv Tf] AaodiKecov eKK\r](TLa di/ayt/coo'6r], Kai Tt]V e/c 
AaoSiKias 'iva Kal vfieh dvayviJoTe. ^''Kai enrare 'Ap- 
■)(^i7r7ra), B/XeVe T}]v ZiaKOviav i]v 7rape\aj3e^ iv Kvpiw, 
'iva avTi]V irXripoh. 

expression is noidv cos or ottccs, e. g. 
Xen. Cyr. vi. 3. 18. 

A similar charge is given in i Thess. 
V. 27. The precaution here is proba- 
bly suggested by the distastefulness 
of the Apostle's warnings, which might 
lead to the suppression of the letter. 

rfji/ eK AaodiKias] i. e. " the letter left 
at Laodicea, which you will procure 
thence.' For this abridged expres- 
sion compare Luke xi. 13 6 nar^p 6 
e^ ovpavov doocrei Trveiipa dyiov, xvi. 26 
(v. 1.) /M7;Se 01 eKeldev Tpos ^fias 
dianepcoa-iv, Susann. 26 oJs de ijKOva-av 
TTjv Kpavyrjv iv to) TrapaSeiaa ol «<c rfjs 
olKias, flTeirribr](Tav k.t.X. For iustiuices 
of this proleptic use of the preposi- 
tion in classical writers, where it is ex- 
tremely conunon, see Kiihner Gr. §448 
(ii. p. 474), Jelf Gr. § 647, Matthise 
Gr. § 596 : e. g. Plat. Apol. 32 b roiis 

OVK dve'kopevovs tovs (k. ttjs vavfxaxias, 
Xen. Cijr. vii. 2. 5 dpT7aa-6p.evoi rd e'/c 

Twv oIkicov, Isocr. Paneg. § 187 rfjv 
evbaipoviav ttjv eK t^s Actios els rfjv 
"EvpaiTrTjv diaKoplaaipev. There are 
good reasons for the belief that St 
Paul here alludes to the so-called 
Epistle to the Ephesians, which was 
in fact a circular letter addressed to 
the principal churches of proconsular 
Asia (see above, p. 37, and the intro- 
duction to the Epistle to the Ephe- 
sians). Tychicus was obliged to pass 
through Laodicea on his way to Co- 
lo8S8e, and would leave a copy there, 
before the Colossian letter was deli- 
vered. For other opinions respecting 
this 'letter from Laodicea' see the 
detached note. 

Iva Kal vpds x.r.X.] ' see thut ye also 
read.' At first sight it might seem as 
though this Iva also were governed by 
•noincraTe, like the former; but, inas- 
much as Troirjcrare would be somewhat 

awkward in this connexion, it is perhaps 
better to treat the second clause as 
independent and elliptical, (/SXeTrfrt) 
ii'a K,T.\. This is suggested also by 
the position of t^v 4k AaodiKias be- 
fore iva; comp. Gal. ii. 10 povov tcov 
TTTa>)((ov Iva pvTjpovevcopev (with the 

note). Ellipses before Iva are fre- 
quent; e.g. John ix. 3, 2 Cor. viii. 13, 
2 Thess. iii. 9, i Job. ii. 19. 
. 17. Kai e'lnare'] Why does not the 
Apostle address himself directly to 
Archippus ? It might be answered that 
he probably thought the warning 
would come with greater emphasis, 
when delivered by the voice of the 
Church. Or the simpler explanation 
perhaps is, that Archippus was not 
resident at Colossa3 but at Laodicea : 
see the introduction to the Epistle 
to Philemon. On this warning itself 
see above, p. 42. 

BXeVe] ^Look to,' as 2 Job. 8 pXinere 
iavToiis iva prj k.rX More commonly 
it has the accusative of the thing to 
be avoided ; see PhU. iii. 2 (with the 

TTjv 8iaKoviav] From the stress which 
is laid upon it, the SiaKovla here would 
seem to refer, as in the case of Timo- 
thy cited below, to some higher func- 
tion than the diaconate properly so 
called. In Acts xii. 25 the same 
phrase, TrKr/povv ttjv BiaKovlav, is used 
of a temporary ministration, the col- 
lection and conveyance of the alms for 
the poor of Jerusalem (Acts xi. 29); 
but the solemnity of the warning here 
points to a continuous office, rather 
than an immediate service. 

TTapeXajSes] i. 6. probably nap" epov. 
The word suggests, though it does not 
necessarily imply, a mediate rather 
than a direct reception : see the note 
Gal. i. 12. Archippus received the 

IV. 1 8] 



jULOu rcov ZeafJitov. 'H %ajOi9 fJieQ' vjjiwv. 

charge immediately from St Paul, 
though ultimately from Christ. ' JM on 
enim sequitur,' writes Bengel, * a 
Domino (i Cor. xi. 23), sed in Domi- 

TvKripois] 'fulfil,^ i.e. ^discharge 
fully ' ; comp. 2 Tim. iv. 5 ttjv Smko- 
vlav crov ■7rXT]po(fiopr](rov, 

18. 'I add this salutation with my 
own hand, signing it with my name 
Paul. Be mindful of my bonds. 
God's grace be with you.' 

'O aa-7rao-/io9 K.r.X.] The letter was 
evidently written by an amanuensis 
(comp. Rom. xvi. 22). The final salu- 
tation alone, with the accompanying 
sentence nv-qfiovevers K.T.X., was in the 
A-postle's own handwriting. This 
seems to have been the Apostle's 
general practice, even where he does 
not call attention to his own signature. 
In 2 Thess. iii. 17 sq., i Cor. xvi. 21, 
as here, he directs his readers' notice 
to the fact, but in other epistles he 
is silent. In some cases however he 
writes much more than the final sen- 
tence. Thus the whole letter to 
Philemon is apparently in his own 
handwriting (see ver. 19), and in the 
Epistle to the Galatians he wi-ites a 
long paragraph at the close (see the 
note on vi. 1 1 ). 

'"S ^V?? X^'P' IlavXou] The same 
phrase occurs in 2 Thess. iii. 17, i Cor. 
xvi 21. For the construction comp. 
e.g. Philo Leg. ad Gai. 8 (n. p. 554) 

eju.oj' fOTt Tov MaKpcofoy epyov Faios, 

and see Kiihuer § 406 (11. p. 242), Jelf 
§ 467. 

Twv 8f(Tpiov] His bonds establish 
an additional claim to hearing. He 
who is suffering for Christ has a right 
to speak on behalf of Christ. The 

appeal is similar in Bphes. iii. i tovtov 

X^P'-'" f'y^ naCXoy 6 hea-pnos tov X. 'l., 

which is resumed again (after a long 
digression) in iv. i napaKoKa ovv vjxas 
eyd) 6 decrfiios iv Kvplco amicus Trept- 
TraTrjcrai k.t.X. (comp, vi. 20 vnep ov 
TrpeajBevco ev dXvcrei). So too Philem. 
9 TOiovTos cov <os IlaCXoj ... fiecr/itos 
XpioTTov 'lr](Tov. These passages seem 
to show that the appeal here is not for 
himself, but for his teaching— not for 
sympathy with his sufferings but for 
obedience to the Gospel. His bonds 
were not his own ; they were ra Bta-pia 
TOV (vayyeXiov (Philem. 13). In Heb. 
X. 34 the right reading is not toIs Secr- 
fiots fiov, but Tols fiecrjuiots avveTTa- 
6rj<TaTe (comp. xiii. 3). Somewhat simi- 
lar is the appeal to his (TTiyjxaTa in 
Gal. vi. 17, 'Henceforth let no man 
trouble me.' See the notes on Philem. 
10, 13. ^ 

'H x"-P'^^ K.r.X."] This very short form 
of the final benediction appears only 
here and in i Tim. vi. 21, 2 Tim. iv. 22. 
In Tit. iiL 15 iravTutv is inserted, and 
80 in Heb. xiii. 25. In Ephes. vi. 24 
the form so far agrees with the ex- 
amples quoted, that rj x^P^s is used 
absolutely, though the end is length- 
ened out. In all the earUer epistles »J 
xapis is defined by the addition of tov 
Kvpiov [i^p.Mv] ^Irjaov [Xpiorou] ; I Thess. 
V. 28, 2 Thess. iii. 18, i Cor. xvi 23, 
2 Cor. xiii. 13, Gal. vl 18, Rom. xvi. 
20, [24], Phil. iv. 23. Thus the abso- 
lute 77 x"P'^ ^^ ^^® fi^^^ benediction 
may be taken as a chronological note. 
A similar phenomenon has been al- 
ready observed {ttJ iKKXrja-iq, Tols fK- 
KXrja-iats) in the opening addi'esses : 
see the note on i. 2. 

16 — 2 



On some Various Headings in the Epistle^. 

istic read- 

(i) for the 
reading ; 

(-2) against 
the correct 


iii. 6, 
words in- 

Ix one respect the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians hold a unique 
position among the Epistles of St Paul, as regards textual criticism. They 
alone have been exposed, or exposed in any considerable degree, to those 
harmonizing tendencies in transcribers, which have had so great an influence 
on the text of the Synoptic Gospels. 

In such cases there is sometimes no difficulty in ascertaining the correct 
reading. The harmonistic change is condemned by the majority of the 
oldest and best authorities ; or there is at least a nearly even balance of 
external testimony, and the suspicious character of the reading is quite 
sufficient to turn the scale. Thus we cannot hesitate for a moment about 
such readings as i. 14 Sia tov aljxuTOi avrov (from Ephes. i. 7), or iii. 16 y\ra\- 
fiois Ka\ vfjLvois Ka\ cobais TTvevfiaTiKoii, and ro) Kupt'o) (for rw ©eco) in tho 
same verse (both from Ephes. v. 19). 

In other instances again there can hardly be any doubt about the text, 
even though the vast preponderance of authority is in favour of the harmo- 
nistic reading ; and these are especially valuable because they enable us 
to test the worth of our authorities. Such examples are : 

iii. 6. The omission of the words eVl rols vlovs rfjs drreidfias (taken 
from Ephes. v. 6). Apparently the only extant MS in favour of the omission 
is B. In D however they are MTitten (though by the first hand) in smaller 
letters and extend beyond the line (in both Greek and Latin), whence 
we may infer that they were not found in a copy which was before the tran- 
scriber. They are wanting also in the Thebaic Version and in one form of tho 
Ethiopic (Polyglott). They were also absent from copies used by Cle- 
ment of Alexandria (Pace?, iii, 11, p. 295, where however they are inserted 
in the printed texts ; Strom, iii. 5, p. 531), by Cyprian {Epist. Iv. 27, p. 645 

1 The references to the patristic quo- 
tations in the following pages have all 
been verified. I have also consulted 
the Egyptian and Syriac Versions in 
every case, and the Armenian and 
Latin in some instances, before giving 
the readings. As regards the mss, I 
have contented myself with the colla- 
tions as given in Tregelles and Tisch- 
endorf, not verifying them unless I 
had reason to suspect an error. 

The readings of the Memphitic Ver- 
sion are very incorrectly given even by 
the principal editors, such as Tregelles 
and Tischendorf; the translation of 

Williins being commonly adopted, 
though full of errors, and no attention 
being paid to the various readings of 
Boetticher's text. Besides the errors 
corrected in the following pages, I 
have also observed these places where 
the text of this version is incor- 
rectly reported ; ii. 7 iv avT-fj not 
omitted; ii. 13 the second vfids not 
omitted; ii. 17 the singular (S), not the 
plural (a) ; iii. 4 vfj.(3v, not TifuQv ; iii. 
16 Tip OeiJ, not T<f5 KvpL({); iii. 22 tov 
Kvpiov, not t6v Qebv; iv. 3 doubtful 
whether 5t' 6 or 5t' 6v ; and probably 
there are others. 


ed. Hartel), by an unknown writer {de Sing. Cler. 39, in Cypr. Op. iir. p. 215), 
by the Ambrosian Hilary {ad loc), and by Jerome {Epist. xiv, 5, i. p. 32) 
though now found apparently in all the Latin mss. 

iii. 21. epfdlCfre is only found in B K and in later hands of D (with its lii. 21 
transcript E) among the imcial mss. All the other uncials read napopylCeTe, ipeO^^ere. 
which is taken from Ephes. vi. 4. In this case however the reading of B is 
supported by the greater number of cursives, and it accordingly has a place 
in the received text. The versions (so far as we can safely infer their read- 
ings) go almost entirely with the majority of uncials. The true readings of Syriac 
the Syriac versions are just the reverse of those assigned to them even by '^^^^^^^^^ 
the chief critical editors, Tregelles and Tischendorf. Thus in the Peshito, ^^[^1^ 
the word used is the Aphel of v\i, the same mood of the same verb being 
employed to translate napopylCdv, not only in Rom. x. 19, but even in 
the parallel passage Ephes. vi. 4. The word in the text of the Harclean 
is the same «^_C\\i^^, but in the margin the alternative •-.^^s?^*?^ 
is given. "White interprets this as saying that the text is (peOiCere and the 
margin napopyi^eTe, and he is followed by Tregelles and Tischendorf. But 
in this version, as in the Peshito, the former word translates napopyl^eiv in 
Rora. X. 19, Ephes. vi. 4; while in the Peshito the latter word is adopted 
to render ipe6iCei.v in 2 Cor. ix. 2 (the only other passage in the N. T. 
where ip(6i(eLv occurs). In the Harclean of 2 Cor. ix, 2 a different word 
from either, ^uj^vm, is used. It seems tolerably clear therefore that 
irapopyl^ere was read in the text of both Peshito and Harclean here, while 
tpediCfTe was given in the margin of the latter. The Latin versions seem Latin 
also to have read TrapopylCere ; for the Old Latin has ad iram (or in iram versions. 
or ad iracundiam) provocare, and the Vulgate ad indignationem provo- 
cate here, while both have ad iracundiam provocare in Ephes. vi. 4. 
The Memphitic too has the same rendering ■^■^s.conT in both passages. Of 
the earlier Greek fathers Clement, Strom, iv. 8 (p. 593), reads ipediCere: 
and it is found in Chrysostom and some later writers. 

These examples show how singularly free B is from this passion for Great 
harmonizing, and may even embolden us to place reliance on its authority value of B. 
in extreme cases. 

For instance, the parallel passages Ephes. v. 19 and Col. iii. 16 stand Parallel 
thus in the received text : passages. 

COLOSSIANS. Col. iii. 16, 

8i8d(rKOVT€s Koi vovderovvres eav- -"^P^*^* ^9* 
Tovs ■^aXfiols Koi vp.vois koi adals 
TTvevfiaTiKoli iv x^P'-''"'- a^ovres ev Trj 
Kapbia vfiav rw Kvpico. 


XaXoGirey iavTols ■\^aX/:ioTs Koi v/x- 
vois KOI mBais nvfyp-UTLKals aboiTes 
Koi -^aXkovTes iv ttj Kaphla v/xaiv 
T«5 'Kvpico. 

And A carries the harmonizing tendency still further by inserting eV 
xapiTi before aSovres in Ephes. from the parallel passage. 

In B they are read as follows : 

"KaiXovvTfs eavrots iv ij/a\p.ols koi SiSao-KOirey koi vovOeTovvTfs fav- 

vixvois adals aSovres koi ■v|/'aA- 
XojTfs TTJ Kap8iq vfiav ra Kvpi'to. 

TOVS yf/aXfioTs vfivois abais nvevfia- 
TiKois iv rfi xP^pLTi aSovTes ev rais 
KapSi'atj vp.av ra> Gew. 


Altera- Here are seven divei-gences from the received text, (i) The insertion of iv 
fh ^° k f ^^'^^'*® yp'oKfj.o'is in Ephes. ; (2) The omission of koI, kuI, attaching '^akfiois, 
harmon- ^t^vois, wSais in Col. ; (3) The omission of nvevnariKals in Ephes. ; (4) The 
izing. insertion of rji before _;^aptri in Col; (5) The omission of ev before rfj aap- 

8ia in Ephes.; (6) The substitution of tols Kapbiais for t^ Kapbla in Col. : 
(7) The substitution of rm Gew for rw Kvpia in Col. 

Of these seven divergences the fourth alone does not afifect the question : 
of the remaining six, the readings of B in (2), (6), (7) are supported by the 
great preponderance of the best authorities, and are unquestionably riglit. 
In (i), (3), (5) however the case stands thus : 
iv xpoKnois. (i) gV ylraXiMols B, P, with the cursives 17, 67** 73, 116, 118, and the 
Latin, d, e, vulg., with the Latin commentators Victoriuus, Hilary, 
and Jerome. Of these however it is clear that the Latin autho- 
rities can have little weight in such a case, as the preposition 
might have been introduced by the translator. All the othor 
Greek mss with several Greek fathers omit eV. 
irvevfjLaTi.- (3) irvevp.ariKa'is omitted in B, d, e. Of the Ambrosian Hilary Tischen- 

'^°-'-^' dorf says ' fluct. lectio ' ; but his comment ' In quo enim est 

spiritus, semper spiritualia meditatur ' seems certainly to recog- 
nise tlie word. It appears to be found in every other authority, 
rg KapSlq.. (5) 7-3 Kapbia i^* B with Origen in Cramer's Catena, p. 201. 

ev Tfj Kapbiq K L, and the vast majority of later mss, the Armenian 
and Ethiopic Versions, Euthalius (Tischendorfs Ms), Theodoret, 
and others. The Harclean Syriac (text) is quoted by Tischen- 
dorf and Tregelles in favour of eV ttj Kap8iq, but it is im- 
possible to say whether the translator had or had not the pre- 
eV Tals Kapbiais s°A D F G P, 47, 8^^ ; the Old Latin, Vulgate, Mem- 
phitic, Peshito Syriac, and Gothic Versions, together with the 
margin of the Harclean Syriac ; the fathers Basil (11. p. 464), 
Victorinus (probablj-), Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Ambrosian 
Hilary, Jerome, and others. Chrysostom (as read in the existing 
texts) wavers between ev rfj xapdiq and ev rals KapBiais. This 
form of the reading is an attempt to bring Ephes. into harmony 
with Col., just as (6) is an attempt to bring Col. into harmony 
with Ephes. 
It will be seen how slenderly B is supported; and yet we can hardly 
resist the impression that it has the right reading in all thi-ee cases. In the 
omission of nvevnaTiKals more especially, where the support is weakest, this 
impression must, I think, be very strong. 
Excellence This highly favourable estimate of B is our starting-point ; and on the 
of B else- whole it will be enhanced as we proceed. Thus for instance in i. 22 andii. 2 
where. ^g gj^^^^ gjj^ tjjjg jjg ^Iq^q (with one important Latin father) retaining the 
correct text ; in the latter case amidst a great complication of various read- 
ings. And when again, as in iv. 8, we find B for once on the side of a reading 
which might otherwise be suspected as a harmonistic change, this support 
alone will weigh heavily in its favour. Other cases in which B (with more 
or less support) preserves the correct reading against the mass of authorities 
are ii. 2 nav ttXovtos, ii. 7 ttj nia-Tei., ii. 13 rols napaTrrdfiaa-iv (omitting eV, 


V. 12 aTaSrJTe, together with several instances which will appear in the 
course of the following investigation. On the other hand its value must 
not be overestimated. Thus in iv. 3 to iiwTrjpiov tov Xpiarov 8t o koI 
8(8efiai^ there can be little doubt that the great majority of ancient autho- False 
rities correctly read St' o, though B P G have Si' 6v : but the variation is f eadinga 
easily explained. A single stroke, whether accidental or deUberate, alone "^ ' 
would be necessary to turn the neuter into a masculine and make the 
relative agree with the substantive nearest to it in position. Again in 
ii. 10 OS ioTLv ?7 KecfiaXi], the reading of B which substitutes 5 for or is 
plainly wrong, though supported in this instance by D F G 47*, by the Latin 
text d, and by Hilary in one passage {de Trin. ix. 8, 11. p. 263), though else- 
where (ib. i. 13, I. p. 10) he reads o. But here again we have only an in- 
stance of a very common interchange. Whether for grammatical reasons or 
from diplomatic confusion or from some other cause, five other instances of 
this interchange occur in this short epistle alone; L 15 o for o? F G; i. 18 o 
for oy F G; i. 24 6s for o D* etc.; i. 27 or for 6' i< C D K L etc.; iii. 14 os 
for o 5<* D. Such readings again as the omission of koL aiToviievot. i. 9 by 
B K, or of St' avTov in i. 20 by B D* F G etc., or of 17 iiria-ToXri in iv. 16 by 
B alone, need not be considered, since the motive for the omission is 
obvious, and the authority of B will not carry as great weight as it would 
in other cases. Similarly the insertion of ?) in i. 18, iq apxn, by B, 47, 67**, 
b^", and of km in ii. 15, koX cSety^ano-ei/, by B alone, do not appear to deserve 
consideration, because in both instances these readings would suggest 
themselves as obvious improvements. In other cases, as in the omission of 
jris before yfjs (i. 20), and of ivL in iv iv\ a-w/xart (iii. 15), the scribe of B has 
erred as any scribe might err. 

The various readings in this epistle are more perplexing than perhaps 
in any portion of St Paul's Epistles of the same lengtL The following de- 
serve special consideration. 

i. 3 TO) 9ecp nATpi'. 

On this very unusual collocation I have already remarked in the notes i, 5 ,-^ 
(p. 1 33). The authorities stand as follows : ^ey varfi, 

(1) rw ^fw irarpi B C*. 

(2) rai Bern tw Trarpl D* F G Chrysostom. 

One or other is also the reading of the Old Latin (d, e, g, harl.**), of the 
Memphitic, the two Syriac (Peshito and Harclean), the Ethiopic, and the 
Arabic (Erpenius, Bedwell, Leipzig) Versions; and of Augustine {de Unit. 
Eccl. 45, IX. p. 368) and Cassiodorus (11. p. 1351, Migne). 

(3) T(5 Beta (cat narpl X A C" D° K L P and apparently all the other 
MSS; the Vulgate and Armenian Versions; Euthalius (Tischendorfs ms), 
Theodore of Mopsuestia (transl), Theodoret, the Ambrosian Hilary, and 

A comparison of these authorities seems to show pretty clearly that 
rw 6(a TTUTpi was the original reading. The other two were expedients 

^ In this passage B (with some few expression (ii. 2, i Cor. iv. i, Eev. x. 
other authorities) has tov Qeod for tov 7 ; comp. i Cor. ii. i, v. 1.) for a lesa 
X/jtoToO, thus substituting a commoner common (Ejihes. iii. 4). 



for getting rid of a very unusual collocation of words. The scribes have 

compared felt the same diflaculty again in iii. 17 evxapLcrrovvrfs rw 0e6 Trarpt Si* 

withm.17, avTov, and there again we find Kai inserted before narpL In this latter 

instance however the great preponderance of ancient authority is in 

favour of the unusual form tw dea TrarpL 

and i. 12. It is worth observing also that in i. 12, where ra narpl has the highest 

support, there is sufficient authority for rw Bea Trarpt to create a suspicion 

that there too it may be possibly the correct reading. Thus ra Bea Trarpt 

is read in K 37, while 6ea tm Trarpt stands in F G. One or other must have 

been the reading of some Old Latin and Vulgate texts (f, g, m, fuld.), of the 

Peshito Syriac, of the Memphitic (in some texts, for others read r<5 Trarpt 

simply), of the Arabic (Bedwell), of the Armenian (Uscan), and of Origen 

(11. p. 451, the Latin translator); while several other authorities, Greek 

and Latin, read rw 6ea Ka\ naTpL 

There is no other instance of this collocation of words, o Qeos -narrip, 
in the Greek Testament, so far as I remember; and it must be regarded 
as peculiar to this epistle. 

i. 4 THN AfAnHN [hn e)(eTe]. 
Here the vai'ious readings are ; 

(1) Trjv dyairqv B. 

(2) TTjv dyaTTTiv ^v txere A N C D* F G P 17, 37, 47; the Old 
Latin and Vulgate, Memphitic (apparently), and Harcleau 
SjTiac Versions; the Ambrosian Hilary, Theodore of 
Mopsuestia (transl.), and others. 

(3) rriv dyairrjv ti]u. D° K L ; the Peshito Syriac (apparently) 
and Armenian (apparently) Versions ; Chrysostom, Theo- 
doret and others. 

If the question were to be decided by external authority alone, we 
could not hesitate. It is important however to observe that (2) conforms 
to the parallel passage Philem. 5 aKovcov <tov ttjv dyairqv Ka\ rfjv tt'kttiv r]v 
exeis, while (3) conforms to the other parallel passage Ephes, i. 15 Ka\ [riyi/ 
dydivr]v\ rffv els navras tovs aylovs. Thus, though rjv e^^^^ is SO highly sup- 
ported and though it helps out the sense, it is open to suspicion. Still the 
omission in B may be an instance of that impatience of apparently super- 
fluous words, which sometimes appears in this ms. 


T^c dydwriv 


iiirkp Tj/Muu, 


Here there is a conflict between mss and Versions. 

(i) linav A B X* D* F G, 3, 13, 33, 43, 52, 80, 91, 109. This must 
also have been the reading of the Ambrosian Hilary 
though the editors make him wi-ite 'pro vobis'), for he ex- 
plains it 'qui eis ministravit gratiam Christi vice apostolV 

(2) vjiav ii° C D*" K L P, 17, 27, 47, and many others ; the Vul- 
gate, the Peshito and Harclean Syriac, the Memphitic, 
Gothic, and Armenian Versions; Chrysostom, Theodore 
of Mopsuestia (transl.), and Theodoret (in their respec- 
tive texts, for with the exception of Chrysostom there 
is nothing decisive in their comments), with others. 


The Old Latin is doubtful ; d, e having vobis and g nobis. 

Though the common confhsion between these two words even in the 
best Mss is a caution against speaking with absolute certainty, yet such 
a combination of the highest authorities as we have here for i^fj.a>v docs 
not leave much room for doubt; and considerations of internal criticism 
point in the same direction. See the note on the passage, 

i. 12 TO) Ikancocanti. 

Against this, which is the reading of all the other ancient authorities, i. 13 
we have iKavwaavri. 

(2) TO) KoKiaavTi D* F G, 17, 80, with the Latin authorities d, e, 

f, g, m, and the Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopic Ver- 
sions. It is so read also by the Ambrosian Hilary, by 
Didymus de Trin. iii. 4 (p. 346), and by Vigilius Thap- 
sensis c. Varim. i. 50 (p. 409). 

(3) TW KaXecravTi Koi iKavcoaavTi, found in B alone. 

Here the confusion between tooiikancocanti and tooikaAscanti would 
be easy, more especially at a period prior to the earliest existing mss, 
when the iota adscript was still written; while at the same time KaXtaavri 
would suggest itself to scribes as the obvious word in such a connexion. It 
is a Western reading. 

The text of B obviously presents a combination of both readings. 

i. 14 eN cp e)(OM€N. 

For tx^/iev B, the Memphitic Version, and the Arabic (Bedwell, Leipzig), j. j^ 
read eo-xo/j-iv. This is possibly the correct reading. In the parallel pas- ex.of^'' o^^ 
sage, Ephes. i. 7, several authorities (X* D*, the Memphitic and Ethiopic ^'^Xo/J-^" ? 
Versions, and the translator of Irenseus v. 14. 3) similarly read ea-xofifv for 
f^oMf- It ^^y ^6 conjectured that ecrxofiev in these authorities was a 
harmonistic change in Ephes. i. 7, to conform to the text which they or 
their predecessors had in Col. i. 14. Tischendoi-f on Ephes. L c. says 'aut 
utroque loco e^o/xej/ aut &ctxo{j-£v Paulum scripsisse puto'; but if any infer- 
ence can be drawn from the phenomena of the mss, they point rather to a 
different tense in the two passages. 

i. 22 AnOKATHAAArHTe. 

Tliis reading is perhaps the highest testimony of all to the great value i. 22 

of B. awoKaTTJK- 

The variations are ; 

(i) anoKaTrik\ayT)Te B. This also seems to be the reading of 
Hilary of Poitiers In xci Psalm. 9 (i. p. 270), who trans- 
fers the Apostle's language into the first person, *cum 
aliquaudo essemus alienati et inimici sensus ejus in factis 
malis, nunc autem reconciliati sumus corpore carnis ejus.' 

(2) aTTOKar-qKkaKrjTai \J. 

(3) aTTOKaraXXayeiiTes D* F G, and the Latin authorities d, e, g. 


u. 2 
Tov QeoO 


tions ; 

(a) by in- 

(5) by. 


m, the Gothic Version, the translator of Irenaeus (v. 14. 3), 

and others. 
(4) diroKa-niWa^ev, all the other authorities. 
Of these (2) is obviously a con-uption of (i) from similarity of sound; 
and (3) is an emendation, though a careless emendation, of (i) for the sake 
of the grammar. It should have been drroicaTaXKayeuTas. The reading 
therefore must he between dnoKaTr]Wayi}Te and dnoKaTiiXka^ev. This latter 
however is probably a grammatical correction to straighten the syntax. 
In the Memphitic a single letter e^-y for e^q would make the difference 
between aTroKaTTjWayrjTe and dTTo/carr/XXa^ef ; but no variation from the 
latter is recorded. 

ii. 2 Tof 0eof, xpicTof. 

The various readings here are very numerous and at first sight per- 
plexing ; but the result of an investigation into their several claims is far 
from unsatisfactory. The reading whicli explains all the rest may safely 
be adopted as the original. 

(i) TOY QeoY XP'C"''OY- 

This is the reading of B and of Hilary of Poitiers, de Trin. ix. 62 
(i, p. 306), who quotes the passage sacramenti Dei Christi in quo etc., and 
wrongly explains it ' Deus Christus sacramentum est.' 

All the other variations are derived from this, either by explanation or 
by omission or by amplification. 

By explanation we get ; 


the reading of D, with the Latin authorities d, e, wliich have Dei quod 
est Christus. So it is quoted by Vigilius Thai)sensis c. Varim. i. 20 
(p. 38o\ and in a slightly longer form by Augustine de Trin. xiii. 24 (viii. 
p. 944) mysterium Dei quod est Christus Jesus. 

(3) TOY QeoY eN xP'ctco. 

So it is twice quoted by Clement of Alexandris. Strom, v. 10 (p. 6^;^), ib. 
12 (p. 694); or 

TOY QeoY TOY gn xP'ctco, 
the reading of 17. 

So the Ambrosian Hilary (both text and commentary) has Dei in 
Christo. And the Armenian has the same lengthened out, Dei in Christo 
Jesu (Zohrab) or Dd patris in Christo Jesu (Uscan). 

(4) Domini quod de Chri.^to 

is the Etliiopic rendering. Wliether this represents another various read- 
ing in the Greek or whether the paraphrase is the translator's owti, it is 
impossible to say. 

The two following variations strive to overcome the difficulty by 
omission ; 

(5) TOY eeOY, 

the reading of D by a second hand, of P, ZJ, 67**, 71, 80, 1 16. 

(6) TOY XP'C''"°Y, 

the reading of Euthalius in Tischendorf's MS; but Tischendoif adib 
the caution ' sed nou satis apparet.' 


All the remaining readings are attempts to remedy the text by ampli- (c) by 
fication. They fall into two classes ; those which insert iraTpos so as to ^^^/ °^" 
make Xptorou dependent on it, (7), (8), and those which separate Qeov from ' 
X/jiCTTou by the interposition of a /cai, (9), (10), (11), 

(7) TOY eeoY nATpoc xP'CToy, W ^7 ™- 
the reading of N (by the first hand). Tischendorf also adds b'""* and ^^^r^fto 
o"'; but I read Scriveners collations differently {God. Aug. p. 506) : or govern 

TOY 6eOY nATpOC toy XP"^''"0"1'» 'S.piarov, 

the reading of A C, 4. 

One or other is the readi:;g of the Thebaic Version (given by Gries- 
bach) and of the Arabic (Leipz.). 

A lengthened form of the same, Dei patris Christ i Jesu, appears in the 
oldest Mss of the Vulgate, am. fuld. f : and the same is also the reading 
of tlie Memphitic (Boetticher). 

(8) toy e€OY KAI HATpOC TOY XP'^TOY- 

So K (the third hand) b''"*, 0'°', and a corrector in the Harclean 

(9) TOY QeoY KAI XP'CTOY, (ii) by 
the simplest form of the other class of emendations by amplification, separating 
It is found in Cvril. Thes. p. 287. 2.'°^ ^^?™ 

(10) TOY 6eOY HATpoc KAI TOY XP'^'''OY- by a con- 
So 47, 73, the Peshito Syriac (ed. princeps and Schaaf). And so it junction. 

stands in the commentators Chrysostom (but with various readings) and 
Theodore of Mopsuestia {Spicil. Solesm. i. p. 131 Dei patris et Christi, 
but in Rab. Maur. Op. vi. p. 521 Dei patris Christi Jesu). 

Pelagius has Dei patris et Christi Jesu, and so the Memphitic ( Wilkins). 

(i i) TOY OeoY KAI HATpoc KAI TOY XP'^™Y- The com- 

This, which may be regarded as the latest development, is the reading ™o^ */*^* 
of the received text. It is found in D (third hand) KL, and in the great (igyelop- 
majority of cursives ; in the text of the Harclean Syriac, and in Theodoret ment. 
and others. 

Besides these readings some copies of the Vulgate exhibit other varia- 
tions; e. g. demid. Dei 2Jdtris et domini nostri Christi Jesu, tolet. Dei 
Christi Jesu patris et Domini. 

It is not necessary to add any remarks. The justification of tov Qeov 
Xpia-Tov as the original reading will have appeared in the variations to 
which it has given rise. The passage is altogether an instructive lesson in 
textual criticism. 

ii. 16 eN Bpobcei kai cm ndcei. 

In this reading B stands alone among the mss; but it is supported by ii. 16 
the Peshito Syriac and Memphitic Versions, by Tertullian {adv. 3Iarc. v. xai or rj ? 
19), and by Origen {in loann. x. § 11, iv. p. 174). The testimony of Ter- 
tulHan however is invalidated by the fact that he uses et as the connecting 
particle throughout the passage ; and the Peshito Syriac also has ' and ' for 
V in tlio two last clauses, though not in the second 



The rest have iv ^pdaei rj iv noa-ei. This may be explained as a very 
obvious, though not very intelligent, alteration of scribes to conform to the 

disjunctive particles in the context, rj eV nipei eopTrjs rj veofirjvlas f) a-a^^artov. 
In this same context it is probable that B retains the right form vio- 
firjvias (supported here by F G and others) as against the Attic vovp,r]vias. 
In the same way in iii. 25 Kofiiaerai and iv. 9 yvcapiaova-iv B (with some 
others) has resisted the tendency to Attic forms. 

ii. 18, the 
of the 

The form 

ii. 23. Is 
Kai to be 
omitted ? 

ii. 18 A eop<M<eN. 

That this is the oldest reading which the existing texts exhibit, will 
appear from the following comparison of authorities. 

(i) a eapaKfv {eSpanev) A B X* D*, 17* 28, 67** ; the Old Latin au- 
thorities d, e, m ; the Memphitic, Ethiopic, and Arabic (Leipz.) 
Versions; TertuU. c. Marc. v. 19 ('ex visionibus angelicis'; 
and apparently Marcion himself also) ; Origen (c. Cels. v. 8, 
I. p. 583, though the negative is here inserted by De la Rue, 
and in Cant, ii, ni. p. 63, in his quae videt) ; Lucifer {De non 
conv. c. haer. p. 782 Migne) ; the Ambrosian Hilary {ad he. 
explaining it ' Inflantur motum pervidentes stellarum, quas 
angelos vocat'). So too the imknown author of Quaest. ex 
N. T. ii. 62 in August. Op. ni. Appx. p. 156. Jerome {Epist. 
cxxiad Alg. § 10, i. p. 880) mentions both readings (with and 
without the negative) as found in the Greek text : and Augus- 
tine {Epist. 149, II. p. 514), while giving the preference to g2<rt^ 
non vidit, says that some mss have quae vidit. 

(2) a fir) e(opaK€v {iopaKfv) N' C D*"" K L P, and the great majority of 

cursives ; 

(3) a ovK (copuKev F G. 

The negative is also read in g ; in the Vulgate, the Gothic, both the 
Syrlac and the Armenian Versions ; in the translator of Origen In Rom. ix. 
§ 42 (iv. p. 665), in Ambrose in Psalm, cxviii Exp. xx. (i. p. 1222), and in 
the commentators Pelagius, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia {Spic. 
Solcsm. I. p. 132 ' quae nee sciunt'), Theodoret, and others. 

From a review of these authorities we infer that the insertion of the 
negative was a later correction, and that a edpaKfv (or iopaKev) represents 
the prior reading. In my note I have expressed my suspicion that a edpa- 
Kfv (or kopaKev) is itself corrupt, and that the original reading is lost. 

The unusual form iopaKev is found in N B* C D P, and is therefore to be 
preferred to icopuKfv. 

ii. 23 [kai] A())eiAlA cdoMATOC. 

Here Kal is found in all the Greek copies except B, but is omitted in 
these Latin authorities, m, the translator of Origen {In Rum. ix. § 42, iv. 
p. 665), Hilary of Poitiers {Tract, in xiv Ps. § 7, p. 73), the Ambrosian 
Hilary, Ambrose {de Noe 25, p. 267), and Paulinus {Epist. 50, p. 292 sq.). We 
have more than once found B and Hilary alone in supporting the correct 
reading (i. 22, ii. 2) ; and this fact gives weight to their joint authority here. 
The omission also seems to explain the impossible reading of d, e, which 


have in rellgione et humilitate sensus et vexation em corporis, where for 
et vexationem we should perhaps read ad vexationem, as in the Ambrosian 
Hilary. There was every temptation for a scribe to insert the Kal so as to 
make d(f)ei8iq. range with the other datives : while on the other hand a finer 
appreciation of the bearing of the passage suggests that St Paul would have 
dissociated it, so as to give it a special prominence. 

A similar instance occurs in iii. 12 w? (kK^ktoI tov Qeov, ayioi koX ijya- 
nrjuevoi, where B omits the Kal with 17 and the Thebaic Version. In 219 
KOL ayiot is read for ayiot kuL The great gain in force leads to the suspicion 
that this omission may be correct, notwithstanding the enormous prepon- 
derance of authority on the other side. 

iv. 8. TNOOTe TA nepi hmcon. 

Of the various readings of this passage I have already spoken (p. 29 sq., iv. 8 
note I, p. 233). 7'"^-^e rk 

The authorities are as follows : ""'P^ ^Z"^"- 

(1) yvare ra rrepl »5/xc5i/ A B D*F G P, lO, 17, 33, 35, 37, 44, 47, 71, 

III, 116, 137 ; d, e, g; the Armenian and Ethiopic Versions; 
Theodore of Mopsuestia^, Theodoret", Jerome (on Ephes. vi. 
21 sq., vn. p. 682), and Euthahus (Tischendorfs ms). This 
is also the reading of ii*, except that it has vfiaJv for i]fiav. 

(2) yva TO. rrepl vfxwv i^" CD^'K li and the majority of cursives; 

the Memphitic, Gothic, Vulgate, and both Syriac Versions; 

the Ambrosian Hilary, Jerome (on Philem. i, vii. p. 748), 

Chrysostom (expressly), and others. 
The internal evidence is considered in the note on the passage, and 
found to accord with the vast preponderance of external authority in favour 
of yvare to. nepL rnia>v. The reading of i< by the first hand exhibits a 
transitional stage. It would appear as though the transcriber intended it 
to be read yvm re ra nepl vfiow. At all events this is the reading of 1 1 1 The vari- 
and of lo. Damasc. Op. n. p. 214. The variation yva to. nepi vp,av is thus p^^s read- 
easily explained, (i) j/zxcoi/ would be accidentally substituted for vfiav; (2) yvare ^^^^ ?'^'-. 
would then be read yva re ; (3) the awkward and superfluous re would be i^j.^ 
omitted. In illustration of the tendency to conform the persons of the 
two verbs yvm, TrapaKaXea-rj (see p. 233), it may be mentioned that 17 reads 
yv^re, TrapaKokiarjTe, both here and in Ephes. vi. 22. 

^ It is true that in the text (Sincil. et oblectent vos per suum adventum 

Solesm. I. p. 123, Eab. Maur. Op. vii. [ = Kal vapaKciXitTia rds Kapdlas v/xuv], 

p. 539, Migne) he is credited with the omnia quae hie aguntur manifesta 

later Latin reading ut cognoscat quae facientes vobis.' See Spicil. Solesm. 

circa vos sunt, but his comment im- 1. c. ; the comment is mutilated in 

pUes the other ; ' Quoniam omnia Eab. Maur. Op. 1. 0. 
vobis nota faciei Tychicus ilia quae ^ Jq the text; but in the commen- 

erga me sunt, propterea a me directus tary he is made to write tva yvq) yap, 

est cum Onesimo fratre qui a vobis (prjal, to. wepi t]ij.Qv, an impossible 

venerat, ut nota vobis faciant quae reading. 
erga nos sunt [ = ypu)Te rd trepl ^^iX-y] 



IV. 15 

or Nyni- 

The Syriac 

The Latin 


The readings here are : 

(i) avrmv K A C P, 5, 9, 17, 23, 34, 39, 47, 73 ; together with the 
Memphitic Version, the Arabic (Leipz.), and Euthalius (Tiach- 
endorf's ms). The Memphitic Version is commonly but 
wrongly quoted in favour of avrov, owing to a mistranslation 
of Wilkins. But both Wilkins and Boetticher give mthout 
any various reading tiothj, i.e. oIkov avrav. This seems also 
to be the reading of Theodoi-e of Mopsuestia {Spic. Solesni. 
1. p. 133) quae in domo eorum est ecdcsia ; though in Rab. 
Maur. 0}). vi. p. 540 his text runs quae in domo ejus est eccle- 
siam, and he is made to say Nynq^ham cum omnibus suis 
qui in dom.o ejus sunt. 

(2) avTrjS B 67** 

(3) avTov D F G K L and the great majority of cursives ; and so 

the Gothic Version, Chrysostom, and Theodoret (the latter 

The singular, whether avrov or avTr)s, is the reading of the old Latin 
and Vulgate, which have <ijus, and of the Armenian. The pronoun is also sin- 
gular in the Peshito and Harclean Syriac. In this language the same con- 
sonants express masculine and feminine alike, the difference lying in the 
pointing and vocalisation. And here the copies are inconsistent with them- 
selves. In the Peshito ^both the editio princeps and Schaafj the proper 
name is vocalised as a feminine Numphe { — '!<ivfi<{>Tj), and yet cnovva.3 
is treated as having a masculine affix, kut' oikov avrov. In the text of the 
Harclean caJui is pointed thus, as a feminine avTT)s; while the margin 
gives the alternative reading ooL* ."X (without the point) = avrov. The name 
itself is written Nympha, which according to the transliteration of this version 
might stand either for a masculine (as Barnaba, Luka, in the context, for 
Bapva^as, Aovkcls) or for a feminine (since Demas, Epaphras, are written with 
an sf. The Latin ejus leaving the gender undetermined, the Latin commen- 
tators were free to take either 2symphas or IS^ympha ; and, as Nympha was a 
common Latin form of Nv/k^t;, they would natm-ally adopt the female name. 
So the commentator Hilary distinctly. 

It should be added that the word is accentuated as a masculine w/lk^oi/ 
in D" L P, and as a feminine>av in B° and Euthalius (Tischendorf's ms). 

^ More probably the latter. In 
Horn, xvi the terminations -o and as 
for the feminine and masculine names 
respectively are carefully reproduced 
in the Harclean Version. In ver. 15 
indeed we have Julias, but the trans- 

lator doubtless considered the name 
to be a contraction for Julianas. The 
proper Syriac termination -a seems 
only to be employed for the Greek -at 
in very familiar names such as Bar- 
naba, Luka. 


On the meaning of TrXrjpoo^a. 

The verb ivK-qpovv has two senses. It signifies either (i) 'To fill', e. g. The mean- 
Acts ii. 2 iiiX'qpaxTev oXou rov oIkov ; or (2) * To fulfil, complete, perfect, ^^S of the 
accomplish', e.g. Matt. xxvi. 56 tva nXrjpadaxnv al ypa(f)al, Rom. xiii. 8 ^^_„qQ^ 
vofjLOv TTfTrXrjpaicev, Acts xii. 25 7r\r]pa>(TavTfS rrjv diaKouiau. The latter sense 

indeed is derived from the former, but practically it has become separate 
from it. The word occurs altogether about a hundred times in the New 
Testament, and for every one instance of the former sense there are at 
least four of the latter. 

In the investigations which have hitherto been made into the significa- False issue 
tion of the derived substantive likrjpap.a, as it occurs in the New Testa- ^^^i^ed 
ment, an almost exclusive prominence has been given to the former mean- ^x^p^^^^ 
ing of the verb ; and much confusion has arisen in consequence. The 
question has been discussed whether liKripap-a has an active or a passive 
sense, whether it describes the filling substance or the filled receptacle : 
and not unfrequently critics have arrived at the result that difierent 
grammatical senses must be attached to it in different passages, even resulting 
within the limits of the same epistle. Thus it has been maintained that ^ theolo- 
the word has a passive sense ' id quod impletur' in Ephes. i. 23 rfi iKKKr^a-ia ^gL^°^" 

rjTii (CTTiv TO (Tcofia avTov, to Trkrjpcofia tov tu rravra iv nacnv TrXrjpovufvov, 

and an active sense 'id quod implet' in Ephes. iii. 19 Iva ifKrjpuidfiTe els nav 
TO 7rXi]pQ}iia TOV Oeoii. Indeed so long as we see in ivX-qpovv only the sense 
'to fill', and refuse to contemplate the sense 'to complete', it seems im- 
possible to escape from the difficulties which meet ixs at every turn, other- 
wise than by assigning to its derivative n'Kijpcopa both an active and a 
passive sense; but the greatest violence is thus done to the connexion of 
theological ideas. 

Moreover the disregard of lexical rules is not less violent ^ Substan- and disre- 
tives in -/la, formed from the perfect passive, appear always to have a S^^d of 
passive sense. They may denote an abstract notion or a concrete thing ; S^^^^^^~' 
they may signify the action itself regarded as complete, or the product of 
the action ; but in any case they give the result of the agency involved in Meaning 
the corresponding verb. Such for example are ayyiKp.a ' a message', anfia ^f^^^f^^' 
*a knot', dpyvpcofia 'a silver-made vessel', j3ovXfvfia 'a plan', SiKot'co/xa 
righteous deed' or 'an ordinance', Cn'^rjp.a 'an investigation', Kijpvyp-a 'a 
proclamation', KwXvixa 'a hindrance', 6p.o'i(x>p.a 'a likeness', opafia 'a vision', 

1 The meaning of this word irXi^pwua it two main senses, * id quod imple- 

is the subject of a paper De vocis ttXij- tur ' and ' id quo res impletur ', the 

pu/xa vario sensu in N. T. in Storr's latter being the more common. He 

Opusc. Acad.i.^. i44sq., andof anela- apparently considers that he has sur- 

borate note in Fritzsche's Rom. 11. p. mounted the difEculties involved in 

469 sq. Storr attempts to show that Storr's view, for he speaks of this last 

it always has an active sense 'id quod as a passive sense, though in fact it is 

implet ' in the New Testament. Fritz- nothing more than ' id quod implet ' 

sche rightly objects to assigning a expressed in other words. In Kom. 

persistently active sense to a word xiii. 10 nrK-qpwfia v6fiov he concedes an 

which has a directly passive termi- active sense ♦ legis completio ', h. e. 

nation: and he himself attributes to ' observatio '. 

tives in 




vfith. the 
sense of 

Its uses in 



(I) 'A 


(TTpwfia 'a carpet', a-ipaLpafia 'a round thing', etc. In many cases the 
same word will have two meanings, both however passive; it will denote 
both the completed action and the result or object of the action : e.g. 
apnayixa the 'robbery' or the 'booty', dvTaXXayfj.a the 'exchange' or the 
'thing given or taken in exchange', 6jjpevp.a the 'hunt' or the 'prey', 
naTTjua the 'tread' or the 'carpet', and the like. But in aU cases the word 
is strictly passive ; it describes that which might have stood after the 
active verb, either as the direct object or as the cognate notion. The 
apparent exceptions are only apparent. Sometimes this deceptive appear- 
ance is in the word itself. Thus Ka.\vp.p.a 'a veil' seems to denote 'that 
which covers', but it is really derived from another sense and construction 
of KoXvTTTeiv, not 'to hide', but 'to wrap round' (e.g. Hom. II. v. 315 npoa-Be 

8e oi TreVXoto (paeivov Trrvyfi fnoKvylrev, xxi. 32 1 Toatrqv 01 acriv KaSinrepde 

KaXv\l/-oi), and therefore is strictly passive. Sometimes again we may be led 
astray by the apparent connexion with the following genitive. Thus iu 
Plut. 3Ior. 78 E 8riXci>fj.a Tov rrpoKonrtiv the word does not mean, as might 
appear at first sight, 'a thing showing' but 'a thing shown', 'a demon- 
stration given'; nor in 2 Thess. i. 5 ep^eiypa t^s SiKaias Kplafus must we 
explain efSety/xa 'a thing proving', but 'a thing proved', 'a proof. And 
the same is probably tlie case also with such expressions as (rvpnocrLav 
ipi6i(Tp.a (Critias in A then. xiii. p. 600 v), to^ov pi>p.a (Jilsch, Pers. 147), 
and the like ; where the substantives in -p.a are no more deprived of their 
passive sense by the connexion, than they are in vnodrjiia wodcov or crrpdj^a 
KXivTjs; though in such instances the license of poetical construction may 
often lead to a false inference. Analogous to this last class of cases is Eur. 

Troad. 824 Zrjpos e;(€ts kvXlkcov nXripcofia, KaXXia-rap Xarpelav, not ' the filling', 

but 'the fulness of the cups, the brimming cups, of Zeus.' 

Now if we confine ourselves to the second of the two senses above 
ascribed to irXripovv, it seems possible to explain nXijpwpa iu the same way, 
at all events in all the theologic;il passages of St Paul and St John, without 
doing any violence to the grammatical form. As irXrjpovv is ' to complete', 
so TvXripa>p.a is 'that which is completed', i.e. the complement \ the full 
tale, the entire number or quantity, the plenitude, the perfection. 

This indeed is the primary sense to which its commonest usages in 
classical Greek can be most conveniently referred. Thus it signifies (i) 
'A ship's crew': e.g. Xen. Hell. i. 6. 16 Sta to (k noXXc^v TrXj/pco/xdrcoi/ es 
oXiyas {vai/s) (KXeXtx^ai tovs apiarovs (peras. Iu this sense, which is very 
frequent, it is generally explained as having an active force, ' that which 
fills the ships'; and this very obvious explanation is recommended by the 
fact that TrXrjpovv vavv is a recognised expression for 'manning a ship', e.g. 

1 The English word complement has 
two distinct senses. It is either (i) 
the complete set, the entire quantity 
or nivmber, which satisfies a given 
standard or cadre, as e. g. the com- 
plement of a regiment; or (ii) the 
number or quantity which, when added 
to a preexisting number or quantity, 
produces completeness ; as e. g. the 

complement of an angle, i. e. the angle 
by which it falls short of being a 
complete right angle. In other words, 
it is either the whole or the part. As 
a theological term, TrX-npu/xa corre- 
sponds to the first of these two senses; 
and with this meaning alone the word 
' complement ' will be used in the fol- 
lowing dissertation. 


Xen. Hell. i. 6. 24. But 7rXj;pa)/xa 13 used not only of the crew which mans 
a ship, but also of the ship which is manned with a crew; e.g. Polyb, i, 49. 
4) S> ^7" Trapova-iav rmv 7rXi]pa)ixaro>v...Ta Trpo(r(f)dT(os Trapayeyovora jrXrjpd- 
fiuTa, Lucian Ver. Hist. ii. 37, 38, d-n-o dvo TrXrjpafiuTOiv e/xaxoj'i-o...7rei/re yap 
fixov TrXrjpcofiaTa ; and it is difficult to see how the word could be trans- 
ferred from the crew to the ship as a whole, if the common explanation 
were correct. Fritzsche {Rom. 11. p. 469 sq.), to whom I am chiefly indebted 
for the passages quoted in this paragraph, has boldly given the word two 
directly opposite senses in the two cases, explaining it in the one ' ea quibus 
naves compleutur, h.e. vel socii navales vel mihtes classiarii vel utrique', 
and in the other 'id quod completur, v.c. uavigium'; but this severance of 
meaning can hardly be maintained. On the other hand, if we suppose that 
the crew is so called as 'the complement', (i.e. 'not that which fills the 
ship', but ' that which is itself fidl or complete in respect of the ship'), 
we preserve the passive sense of the word, while at the same time the 
transference to the fully equipped and manned vessel itself becomes natural. 
In this sense 'a complement' we have the word used again of an army, 

Aristid. 0>'. I. p. 381 p-^jre avrapKen ecrerrdai TtX^pcofia ivos OLKfiov crrpaTevfiaTos {■2) 'Popu- 

•Kapaa-x^crBai. (2) It sometimes signifies 'the population of a city', Arist, lation.' 

Pol. iii. 13 (p. 1284) p^r) peVTOi dwaroL ttAt^pco/io Tvapacrx^crdat TToXecos (comp. 

iv. 4, p. 1 291). Clearly the same idea of completeness underlies this 
meaning of the word, so that here again it signifies 'the complement': 
comp. Dion. Hal. A. R. \i. 51 tov S' oXiyov koI ovk d^iopaxov irX-qpapLaTos 
TO TvXelov ea-ri brjpoTiKov k.t.X., Eur. Tun 663 tc5i/ ipiXcov TrXijpcop.' ddpoiaas Ij) 'Total 
'the whole body of his friends'. (3) 'The entire sum', Arist. Vesp. 660 amount.' 
TovTcov TvXrjpoip.a ToXavr eyyiis 8i(TXiXia yiyverai. ^fuv, ' From these SOUl'Ces a (4) 'Entire 
total of nearly two thousand talents accrues to us', (4) 'The full term', term.' 
Herod, iii. 22 oybaKOvra S' erea ^orjs irXrjpap.a dvhp\ paKporarov TrpOKeeadai. le) 'Fulfil- 

(5) ' The perfect attainment', ' the full accomplishment', e.g. Philo de Abr. ment.' 
46 (11. p. 39) 7rX?']po3pa xp'jcrrwi' eXTrtSwi'. In short the fundamental mean- 
ing of the word generally, though perhaps not universally, is neither ' the 
fining material', nor 'the vessel filled'; but 'that which is complete in 
itself, or in other words ' plenitude, fulness, totality, abundance'. 

In the Gospels the uses of the word present some difficulty, (i) In Use of 
Matt. ix. 16 aipei yap to TrXrjpcopLa avTov otto tov IpaTiov koL x^^pov <rxi(Tua 'n'XrjpwiJ.a 
yiveTai, it refers to the iirl^Xrjpa pa/cous ay vd(^ov which has gone before; but ^^''^^"'^s- 
■nXrjpapa need not therefore be equivalent to inl^Xripa so as to mean the jiatt ix 
patch itself, as is often assumed. The following pronoun avTov is most 16. 
naturally referred to iniliX-qpa ; and if so nXi^pcop-a describes ' the com- 
pleteness', which results from the patch. The statement is thus thro\\Ti 
into the form of a direct paradox, the very completeness making the 
garment more imperfect than before. In the parallel passage Mark Mark ii. 
ii. 21 the variations are numerous, but the right reading seems certainly 21. 
to be aipet TO nXripapa div axiTov, to Kaivou tov naXaiov k.t.X. The received 
text omits the preposition before avTov, but a glance at the authorities is 
convincing ta favour of its insertion. In this case the construction wiU be 
a'lpei TO TvXrjpapa (nom.) dir avTov (i.e. tov 'ip.aTiov, which has been men- 
tioned immediately before), t6 koivov {irXi^pay-a) tov iraXaiov (ip.aTiov) ; 
'The completeness takes away from the garment, the new completeness 

cor^ 17 


Mark vi. 

Mark viii. 

Usage in 
St Paul's 
I Cor. X. 

Rom. xiii. 

Eom. XV. 

Gal. iv. 4. 
Eph. i, to, 

Eora. xi. 


Rom. xi. 


of the old garment^ where the paradox is put still more emphatically. 
(2) In Mark vi. 43 the right reading is Ka\ ^pav Kkaanarcov ha^eKa ko({>i- 
vovs TT\r]pc6iiaTa, i.e. 'full' Or 'complete measures', where the apposition to 
Ko({)i.vovs obviates the temptation to explain ■n-X-qpupara as ' ea quae im- 
plent'. On the other hand in Mark viii. 20 noa-av anvpiSav TfKr]pap.aTa 
KkaapiaTav ijpare ; this would be the prima facie explanation; comp. 
Eccles. IV. 6 dyaGov icTTi 7r\i]pa)p.a Spa/cos dvanavcreas vTvep TrXr/pw/iara 8vo 
dpuKoiv fjioxdov. But it is objectionable to give an active sense to TrXi^poofia 
under any circumstances ; and if in such passages the patch itself is meant, 
it must still be so called, not because it fills the hole, but because it is 
itself fulness or fuU measure as regards the defect which needs sup- 

From the Gospels we pass to the Epistles of St Paul, whose usage 
bears more directly on our subject. And here the evidence seems all to 
tend in the same direction, (i) In i Cor. x. 26 roO Kvpiov yap ij yrj koI t6 
Tr'Kr/pcop.a avrrjs it occurs in a quotation from Ps. xxiv (xxiii). i. The ex- 
pressions TO 7i\TJpa>pa T7]s yijs, to irkripaipa ttjs BaXaaarjs, occur several times 
in the Lxx (e.g. Ps. xcvi (xcv). 11, Jer. viii. 16), where to irXripapa is a 
translation of N?D, a word denoting primarily 'fulness', but having in its 
secondary uses a considerable latitude of meaning ranging between 'con- 
tents' and 'abundance'. This last sense seems to predominate in its 
Greek rendering Tr'Ki'jpcop.a, and indeed the other is excluded altogether in 
some passages, e.g. Cant. v. 13 eVt nXrjpapaia v8aru>p. (2) In Rom. xiii. 10 
7rXi/pa)/xa vopov tJ ciyaTri], the best comment on the meaning of the word is 
the context, ver. 8 6 uya-rroiv tov enpov vofiov TrafkTjpdiKev, SO that T!\rjpa>p,a 
here means the 'completeness' and so 'fulfilment, accomplishment': see 

the note on Gal. v. 14. (3) In llom. XV. 29 iv TrXrjpoopaTi ev\oyias Xpiarov 

eXeiKTopai, it plainly has the sense of 'fulness, abundance'. (4) In Gal. 
iv. 4 ore de fjXBiv to rrXt'jpcopa tov xpot'ov and Ephes. i. lo ds oiKOvopiiav too 
nXrjpoipaTos tcoj/ Kaipcov, its force is illustrated by such passages as Mark 
i. 15 TreTrXrjpwrat d Kaipoe koX yjyyiKev 77 /3acriXeia k.t.X., Luke xxi. 24 o)(pi 
ov 7TXr]pQ}6(oaiv Kaipo\ idvCav (comp. Acts ii. I, vii. 23, 30, ix. 23, xxiv. 27), so 
that the expressions will mean ' the full measure of the time, the full tale 

of the seasons'. (5) In Rom. xi. 25 irdpaxTH diro fiepovs tm 'lo-pai^X yeyo- 

vfv axpii ov TO 7rX^pcop.a Tav tdi/cov eiVeX^, it seems to mean 'the full num- 
ber', 'the whole body', (whether the whole absolutely, or the whole rela- 
tively to God's purpose), of whom only a part had hitherto been gathered 
into the Church. (6) In an earlier passage in this chapter the same 
expression occurs of the Jews, xi. 12 el Be to 7rapa7rrw/ia avrav ttXovtos 
Kocrpov (Cat to rjTTrjpa avTcov ttXovtos iBvwv, TTocra) paXXov to TrXrjpuipa avTav. 

Here the antithesis between rJTTTjpa and TrXijpoopa, 'failure' and 'fulness', is 
not sufficiently direct to fix the sense of -rrXripapa ; and (in the absence of 
anything to guide us in the context) we may fairly assume that it is used 
in the same sense of the Jews here, as of the Gentiles in ver. 25. 

Thus, whatever hesitation may be felt about the exact force of the 
word as it occurs in the Gospels, yet substantially one meaning runs 
through all the passages hitherto quoted from St Paul. In these TrXripwfia 
has its proper passive force, as a derivative from jrXrjpovv ' to make com- 
plete'. It is 'the full complement, the entire measure, the plenitude, tlie 


fulness'. There is therefore a presumption in favour of this meaning in 
other passages where it occurs iu this Apostle's writings. 

We now come to those theological passages in the Epistles to the Theologi- 
Colossians and Ephesians and in the Gospel of St John, for the sake of ^^^ P^-?- 
which this investigation has been undertaken. They are as follows ; sages in 

Col. i. 19 (" avTM fvdoKrjCTfv Trav to TrXijpcoiJLa KaToiKijcrai. Colossians 

Col. ii. 9 eV nvTM KuroLKel Trav to irKrjpayLa Trjs deoTrjTos (TcofiaTtKcos, Koi ^^^ Epbe- 
, y > . - N ' ' sians. 

fare ev avTco TreTrAT^pw/xei'ot. 

Ephes. i. 23 avTov fhaxev K€(f)aXf]u vnep TcavTa rfj eK/cXijcrig, TJns icTTiu to 
aSfia avTov, to likrjpaiiia tov to. iravra eu ■Kacrtv irXr]povp-€vov, 

Ephes. iii, 19 "ifo. TrKripcodrJTe eli Trav to nX'^pcofia tov Qeov. 

Ephes. iv. 13 els avdpa TeXeiov, els [leTpov rfXiKias tov TrXr/pcB/iaror tov 

John i. 14, 16, Ka\ 6 Xoyos (Tcip^ iyiveTO Koi iaKrjvaxrev iv ripTiv (/cai iOea- St John. 
crapeOa Trjv to^av avTov, ho^av a>s povoyevovs napa naTpos) 7r\i]prjs X'^P'-'''^^ 
Koi dXr]deias...fK tov nXtjpcopaTos avTov jy/^eif TtavTes eXa^opev koi X^^P'" (ivtI 

To these should be added two passages from the Ignatian Epistles 1, Ignatius. 
■which as belonging to the confines of the Apostolic age afiford valuable 
illustration of the Apostolic language. 

EpJieS. inscr. 'l-yi/artor, o /cat Oeocjyopos, rrj evXoyrjpevj] iv peyedd Qtov 
TTOTpos 7rXr]pc!)paTi^...Tf} iKKXrjcria Trj d^iopaxapiaTa) Trj oiiarj iv Ec^eVw k.t.X. 

Trail, inscr. 'lyvaTios, 6 koI Qeo<p6pos . . .iKKXrjaia dyia Trj ovdj] iv TpdXXf- 
<nv...fjv Koi dana^opai iv rw irXripcopaTi, iv dnoaToXiKa x(ip(ii^''''}pi" 

It will be evident, I think, from the passages in St Paul, that the word The term 
irXripapa 'fulness, plenitude', must have had a more or less definite theo- ^^^ ^ ^^• 
logical value when he wrote. This inference, which is suggested by the ^^^ 
frequency of the word, seems almost inevitable when we consider the form 
of the expression in the first passage quoted. Col. i. 19. The absolute use 
of the word, Tvav to nXripapa 'all the fulness', would otherwise be imintelli- 
gible, for it does not explain itself. In my notes I have taken 6 Geos to be 
the nominative to fiboKr^mv, but if the subject of the verb were ndv rn 
irXijpcopa, as some suppose, the inference would be still more necessary. The 
word however, regarded as a theological term, does not appear to have been 

^ The first of the two passages is present Syriac text has et perfectae for 
containedin the short Syriac recension, irX-qpthpan; but there is no reason 
though loosely translated; the other is for supposing that the Syriac trans- 
wanting there. I need not stop to en- lator had another reading before 
quire whether the second was written him. A slight change in the Syriac, 
by Ignatius himself or not. The seven ^ i « ^ \ 
epistles, even if not genuine (as I now rCjOSaOJC-S tor r T i^'TIT -? 30, 
beheve them to be), can hardly date would bring this version into entire 
later than the middle of the second accordance with the Greek ; and the 
century and are therefore early enough confusion was the more easy, because 
to afford valuable illustrations of the the latter word occurs in the imme- 
Apostles' language. diate context. Or the translator may 

2 The common texts read koX irXrjpu- have indulged in a paraphrase ac- 

fiaTi, but there can be httle doubt cording to his wont; just as in the 

(from a comparison of the authorities) longer Latin version TrXij^ti^uari here 

that Kai should be struck out. The is translated repletae. 

17 — 2 


adopted, like so many other expressious in the Apostolic writers^, from the 
derived nomenclature of Alexandrian Judaism. At least no instance of its occur- 
from Pa- rence in this sense is produced from Philo. "We may therefore conjecture 
not aL^ that it had a Palestinian origin, and that the Esseue Judaizers of Colossfe, 
andria. whom St Paul is confronting, derived it from this source. In this case it 
would represent the Hebrew nh'O, of which it is a translation in the lxx, 
and the Aramaic r^-Ac03 or some other derivative of the same root, 
such being its common rendering in the Peshito. 
It denotes The sense in which St Paul employs this term was doubtless the sense 
the totality -^vbich he found already attached to it. He means, as he explicitly states in 
vine BOW- " ^^® second Christological passage of the Colossian Epistle (ii. 9), the ple- 
ers, etc. roma, the plenitude of 'the Godhead' or 'of Deity'. In the first passage 
in the (i. 19), though the word stands witliout the addition ttjs deorrjros, the signi- 
Colossian g cation required by the context is the same. The true doctrine of the one 
Christ, who is the absolute mediator in the creation and government of the 
world, is opposed to the false doctiine of a plurality of mediators, ' thrones, 
dominions, principahties, powers'. An absolute and unique position is 
claimed for Him, because in Him resides 'all the pleroma', i.e. the full 
complement, the aggregate of the Divine attributes, virtues, energies. This 
is another way of expressing the fact that He is the Logos, for the Logos is 
the synthesis of all the various 8vvdfieis, in and by which God manifests 
Himself whether in the kingdom of nature or in the kingdom of grace. 
Analogy to This apiilication is in entire harmony with the fundamental meaning of 
its usage ^jjg -^vord. The term has been transfen'cd to the region of theology, but in 
^ s w er . ^j^ggif jj. conveys exactly the same idea as before. It implies that all the 
several elements which are required to reahse the conception specified are 
in Philo, present, and that each appears in its full proportions. Thus Philo, describing 
of the tijQ ideal state of prosperity which will result from absolute obedience 
^ ^' to God's law, mentions among other blessings the perfect development of 
the family : • Men shall be fathers and fathers too of goodly sons, and women 
shall be mothers of goodly children, so that each household shall be the 
pleroma of a numerous kindred, where no part or name is wanting of all 
those which are used to designate relations, whether in the ascending line, 
as parents, uncles, grandfathers, or again in the descending line in like 
manner, as brothers, nephews, sons' sons, daughters' sons, cousins, cousins' 
and in sons, kinsmen of all degi-eesV So again Aristotle, criticizing the Re- 
Aristotle, 2nMic of Plato, writes; ' Socrates says that a city (or state) is composed of 
state^ four classes, as its indispensable elements (jav avayKmoraTav) : by these he 
means the weaver, the husbandman, the shoemaker, and the builder ; and 
again, because these are not sufficient by themselves, he adds the smith 
and persons to look after the necessary cattle, and besides them the mer- 
chant and the retail dealer : these together make up the x>leroma of a 
city in its simplest form {ravra tvavra yiverai nXripoofia Trjs TrpcoTrjs TrdXeuy); 

^ See the notes on Col. i. 15 sq. ^ dvdfiaros tQv 6aa iiri^-qfii^eTai k.t.X. 

" de Praem. et Poen. 18 (11. p. 425). The construction of the subsequent 

The important words are ws 'iKaoTov part of the sentence is obscure ; and 

oIkov irXrjpuina eTvai Tro\vav0pd)Trov cvy- for ofioiovs we should probably read 

yevelai, firidei/bs i\\ei^6&T0i rj /ji^povs 6/xolus. 


thus he assumes that a city is formed to supply the bare necessities of life 
{tcov avayKaiojv x^P'") ^tc' \ From these passages it will be seen that the 
adequacy implied by the word, as so used, consists not less in the variety 
of the elements than in the fulness of the entire quantity or number. 

So far the explanation seems clear. But Avhen we tm-n from the Colos- Transition 
sian letter to the Ephesian, it is necessary to bear in mind the diflferent irom Co- 
aims of the two epistles. While in the former the Apostle's main object j^ssians to 
is to assert the supremacy of the Person of Christ, in the latter his prin- gians" 
cipal theme is the life and energy of the Church, as dependent on Christ-. 
So the pleroma residing in Christ is viewed from a different aspect, no 
longer in relation to God, so much as in relation to the Church, It is that Corre- 
plenitude of Divine graces and virtues which is communicated through spending 
Christ to the Church as His body. The Church, as ideally regarded, the ^PP^ica- 
bride 'without spot or wrinkle or any such thing', becomes in a manner ^j^^.^^^ 
identified witli Him^. All the Divine graces which reside in Him are to the 
imparted to her; His 'fulness' is communicated to her : and thus she may Church. 
be said to be His pleroma (i. 23). This is the ideal Church. The actual 
militant Church must be ever advancing, ever struggling towards the 
attainment of this ideal. Hence the Apostle describes the end of all 
offices and administrations in the Church to be that the collective body 
may attain its full and mature growth, or (in other words) may grow up 
to the complete stature of Christ's fulness*. But Christ's fulness is God's 
fulness. Hence in another passage he prays that the brethren may by 
the indwelling of Christ be fulfilled till they attain to the pleroma of God 
(iii. 19). It is another way of expressing the continuous aspiration and 
effort after holiness which is enjoined in our Lord's precept, 'Ye shall 
be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect '^ 

The Gospel of St John, written in the first instance for the same Gospel of 
churches to which the Epistle to the Bphesians was sent, has numerous and St John, 
striking points of resemblance with St Paul's letter. This is the case here. 
As St Paul tells the Ephesians that the ideal Church is the pleroma of 
Christ and that the militant Church must strive to become the pleroma 
of Christ, so St John (i. 14 sq.) after describing our Lord as jiovoyevrjs, 
i.e. the unique and absolute representative of the Father, and as such 
'full (n'KrjpTjs) of grace and of truth', says that they, the disciples, had 
'received out of His pleroma' ever fresh accessions of grace. Each indi- 

1 Arist. Pol. iv. 4 (p. 1291). these various partial gi-aces bestowed 

2 See the notes on Col. ii. 19 (p. on individuals to be the unity and 
198). mature growth of the whole, 'the 

3 Ephes. V. 27 sq. building up of the body', fiexpl Karav- 
* The Apostle in this passage r-^auixev ol iravres els rriv ivdTTjTU... 

(Ephes. iv. 13) is evidently contem- els dvdpa riXewv, els /jL^rpov i}\iKias rod 

plating the collective body, and not TrXTipw/j-aros rod XpicrToD, This cor- 

the individual believers. He writes ol porate being must grow up into the 

wdvTes, not iravres, and dv5pa riXeiov, one colossal Man, the standard of 

not dvdpas reXelovs. As he has said whose spmtual and moral stature la 

before ivl e/cdtrTy thjlQv idadrj [rj] x<^pi-^ nothing less than the pleroma of 

/cord t6 fiiTpov t^s Sdjpeds rou Xpi- Christ Himself. 

ffTov, so now he describes the result of ^ Matt. v. 48. 




sec OS. 

vidual believer in his degree receives a fraction of that pleroma which is 
oommunicated whole to the ideal Church. 

The use of the word is not very different in the Ignatian letters. St 
Ignatius greets this same Ephesian Church, to which St Paul and St John 
successively here addressed the language already quoted, as 'blessed in 
greatness by the pleroma of God the Father', i.e. by graces imparted 
from the pleroma. To the Trallians again he sends a greeting ' in the ple- 
roma', where the word denotes the sphere of Divine gifts and operations, so 

that ev rco TrXr/pco/iart is almost equivalent to eV rw Kvpia or iv TO) TTvevfiari. 

"When we turn from Catholic Christianity to the Gnostic sects we find 
this term iised, thoiigh (with one important exception) not in great fre- 
quency. Probably however, if the writings of the earlier Gnostics had 
been preserved, we should have found that it occupied a more important 
place than at present appears. One class of early Gnostics separated the 
spiritual being Christ from the man Jesus; they supposed that the Christ 
entered Jesus at the time of His baptism and left him at the moment of 
His crucifixion. Thus the Christ Avas neither born as a man nor suffered 
as a man. In this way they obviated the difficulty, insuperable to the 
Gnostic mind, of conceiving the connexion between the highest spi- 
ritual agency and gross corporeal matter, which was involved in the 
Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation and Passion, and which Gnostics of 
another type more effectually set aside by the theory of docetism, i.e. by 
assuming that the human body of our Lord was only a phantom body and 
not real flesh and blood. Ireuajus represents the former class as teaching 
that 'Jesus was the receptacle of the Christ', and that the Christ 'de- 
scended upon him from heaven in the form of a dove and after He had 
declared (to mankind) the nameless Father, entered (again) into the ple- 
rinthians. roma imperceptibly and invisibly'^. Here no names are given. But in 
another passage he ascribes precisely the same doctrine, without however 
naming the pleroma, to Ceriuthus^. And in a third passage, which links 
together the other two, this same father, after mentioning this heresiarch, 
again alludes to the doctrine which maintained that the Christ, having 
descended on Jesus at his baptism, 'flew back again into His own ple- 
roma'^ In this last passage indeed the opinions of Ceriuthus are men- 

The Ce- 

^ iii. 1 6. I 'Quoniam autem sunt 
qui dicunt lesumquidemreceptaculum 
Christi fuisse, in quern desuper quasi 
columbam descendisse, et quum indi- 
casset iunominabilem Patrem, incom- 
prehensibiliter et invisibiliter intrasse 
in pleroma '. 

2 i. 26. I 'post baptismum descen- 
disse in eum ab ea priuciisalitate, quae 
est super omnia, Christum figura co- 
lumbae ; et tunc auniiutiasse incog- 
nitum Patrem et virtutes perfecisse : 
in fine autem revolasse iteruniChxiniwm. 
de lesu et Icsum passum esse ct 
resurrcxisse, etc' 

3 iii. II. I 'iterum revolasse hi suum 

pleroma '. This expression is the con- 
necting link between the other two 
passages. This tliii'd passage is quoted 
more at length above, p. no. In this 
passage however the reference of illi 
in ' quemadmodum ilU dicunt ' is 
doubtful. Several critics refer it to 
the Valentiniaus, and certainly some 
characteristic errors of the Yalentinian 
teaching are speciiied immechately 
after. The probable explanation seems 
to be that it is intended to include 
the Gnostics generally, and that Ire- 
nasus mentions in illustration the 
principal errors of Gnostic teaching, 
irrespective of the schools to which 


tioned in connexion with those of other Gnostics, more especially tlie 
Valeutinians, so that we cannot with any certainty attribute this expression 
to Cerinthus himself. But in the first passage the unnamed heretics who 
maintained this return of the Christ 'into the pleroma' are expressly dis- 
tinguished from the Valeutinians ; and presumably therefore the allusion 
is to the Cerinthians, to whom the doctrine, though not the expression, is 
ascribed in the second passage. Thus there seems to be sufBcient reason Connexion 
for attributing tlie use of the term to Cei-iuthus^. This indeed is probable of this use 
on other grounds. The term pleroma, we may presume, was common to p^''^ 
St Paul and the Colossian heretics whom he controverts. To both alike it ^'i^i^ ^^j^g 
conveyed the same idea, the totality of the divine powers or attributes or Colossian 
agencies or manifestations. But after this the divergence begins. They heretics, 
maintained that a single divine power, a fraction of the pleroma, resided in 
our Lord : the Apostle urges on the contrary, that the whole pleroma has 
its abode in Him-. The doctrine of Cerinthus was a development of the 
Colossian heresy, as I have endeavoured to show above^. He would 
therefore inherit the tenn pleroma from it. At the same time he The pie- 
seems to have given a poetical colouring to his doctrine, and so doing roma 
to have treated the pleroma as a locality, a higher spiritual region, loc^hsed. 
from which this divine power, tyi^ified by the dove-like form, issued 
forth as on wings, and to which, tailing flight again, it reascended 
before the Passion. If so, his language would prepare the way for the still 
more elaborate poetic imagery of the Valeutinians, in which the pleroma, 
conceived as a locality, a region, an abode of the divine powers, is con- 

The attitude of later Gnostics towards this term is widely divergent. The term 
The word is uot, so far as I am aware, once mentioned in connexion with avoided by 
the system of Basilides. Indeed the nomenclature of this heresiarch be- Basilides, 
longs to a wholly difierent type ; and, as ho altogether repudiated the 
doctrine of emanations*, it is not probable that he would have any fondness 
for a term which was almost inextricably entangled with this doctrine. 

On the other hand with Valentiuus and the Valeutinians the doctrine but promi- 
of the pleroma was the very key-stone of their system ; and, since at first Jient in 
sight it is somewhat diflicult to connect their use of the term with St Paul's, X'^^s?*^" 
a few words on this subject may not be out of place. mamsm. 

Valentiuus then dressed his system in a poetic imagery not unlike the Poetic 

they belong. Ho goes on to say that * Hippol. JR. H. vii. 22 <pivyei yap 

St John in his Gospel desired to ex- Trduv Kal 5edoiKe rds kutci. irpo^oXriv twv 
elude ' omnia talia '. yeyovbTuv omlas 6 BacrtXe/S?;?. Basi- 

1 I have not been able however to lides asked why the absolute First 
verify the statement in Harvey's Ire- Cause should be likened to a spider 
nceus I. p. Ixsiii that ' The Valentinian spinning threads from itself, or a smith 
notion of a spiritual marriage between or carpenter working up his materials, 
the souls of the elect and the angels The later Basilideans, apparently in- 
of the Pleroma originated with Ce- fluenced by Valentinianism, super- 
rinthus '. added to the teachmg of their founder 

'^ See p. 99 sq., and the notes on in this respect ; but the strong language 
i- 19- quoted by Hippolytus leaves no doubt 

^ p. 105 sq. about the mind of Basilides himself. 



of Valen- 

of the ple- 
of pleroma 
and keno- 

the abode 
of the 

forms of 

myths of his master Plato. But a myth or story involves action, and action 
requires a scene of action. Hence the mysteries of theology and cosmogony 
and redemption call for a tojjographical representation, and the pleroma 
appears not as an abstract idea, but as a locality. 

The Valentinian system accordingly maps out the universe of things 
into two great regions, called respectively the pleroma and the kenoma, 
the 'fulness' and the 'void'. From a Christian point of view these may be 
described as the kingdoms of light and of darkness respectively. From 
the side of Platonism, they are the regions of real and of phenomenal 
existences — the world of eternal archetypes or ideas, and the world of 
material and sensible things. The identification of these two antitheses 
was rendered easy for the Gnostic ; because with him knowledge was one 
with morality and with salvation, and because also matter was absolutely 
bound up with evil. It is difficult to say whether the Platonism or the 
Christianity predominates in the Valentinian theology ; but the former at 
all events is especially prominent in their conception of the relations 
between the plei'oma and the kenoma. 

The pleroma is the abode of the jEons, who are thirty in number. 
These Jilons are successive emanations, of which the first pair sprang im- 
mediately from the preexistent Bythus or Depth. This Bythus is deity in 
itself, the absolute first principle, as the name suggests ; the profound, 
unfathomable, limitless, of whom or of which nothing can be predicated 
and nothing known. Here again we have something like a local repre- 
sentation. The Mom, or emanations are plainly the attributes and energies 
of deity ; they are, or they comprise, the eternal ideas or archetypes of the 
Platonic philosophy. In short they are deity relative, deity under self- 
imposed limitations, deity derived and divided iip, as it were, so as at 
length to be conceivable. 

The topographical relation of Bythus to the derived ^Eons was dif- 
ferently given in diflereut developments of the Valentinian teaching. 
According to one representation he was outside the pleroma; others 
placed his abode within it, but even in this case he was separated from the 
rest by Horus fOpoy), a personified Boundary or Fence, whom none, not 
even the Mons, themselves, could passK The former mode of representa- 

1 For the various modes in which 
the relation of the absolute first prin- 
ciple to the pleroma was represented 
in different Valentinian schools, see 
Iran. i. r. i, i. 2. 4, i. 11. i, 3, 5, i. 12. 
I, etc. The main distinction is that 
stated in the text; the first principle 
was represented in two ways; either 
(i) as a monad, outside the pleroma ; 
or (ii) as a dyad, a syzygy, most com- 
monly imder the designation of 'QvOhs 
and 21717, included within the pleroma 
but fenced off from the other ajons. 
The Valentinian doctrine as given by 
Hippolytus (vi. 29 sq.) represents the 

former type. There are good, though 
perhaps not absolutely decisive, rea- 
sons for supposing that this father gives 
the original teaching of Valentinus 
himself. For (i) this very doctrine of 
the monad seems to point to an earlier 
date. It is the Hnk which connects 
the system of Valentinus not only 
with Pythagoreanism to which (as 
HippolytiTs points out) he was so 
largely indebted, but also with the 
teaching of the eai'lier heresiarch Ba- 
silides, whose first principle likewise 
was a monad, the absolute nothing, 
the non-existent God. The conception 


tion might be thought to accord better with the imagery, at the same time 
that it is more accurate if regarded as the embodiment of a philosophical 
conception. Nevertheless the latter was the favourite mode of delinea- 
tion; and it had at least this recommendation, that it combined in one all 
that is real, as opposed to all that is phenomenal. In this pleroma every 
existence which is suprasensual and therefore true has its abode. 

Separated from this celestial region by Horus, another Horus or Kenoma, 
Boundary, which, or who, like the former is impassable, lies the ' kenoma ' ^^^ region 
or ' void '—the kingdom of this world, the region of matter and material P^^^io- 
things, the land of shadow and darkness^. Here is the empire of the 
Demiurge or Creator, who is not a celestial Mon at all, but was born in this 
very void over which he reigns. Here reside all those phenomenal, decep- 
tive, transitory things, of which the eternal counterparts are found only in 
the pleroma. 

It is in this antithesis that the Platonism of the Valentinian theory Platonism 
reaches its climax. All things are set off one against another in these two oi this an- 
regions^: justas tithesis. 

The swan on still St Mary's lake 
Floats double, swan and shadow. 

Not only have the thirty jEons their terrestrial counterparts; but their 
subdivisions also are represented in this lower region. The kenoma too 
has its ogdoad, its decad, its dodecad, like the pleroma^ There is one 
Sophia in the supramundane region, and another in the mundane; there 
is one Christ who redeems the iEons in the spiritual world, and a second 
Christ who redeems mankind, or rather a portion of mankind, in the 
sensible world. There is an Mon Man and another J5on Ecclesia in the 
celestial kingdom, the ideal counterparts of the Human Race and the 
Christian Church in the terrestrial. Even individual men and women, as 
we shall see presently, have their arclietypes in this higher sphere of 
intelligible being. 

of the first principle as a dyad seems of his exposition. It seems most na- 

to have been a later, and not very tural therefore that he should have 

happy, modification of the doctrine of taken the system of the founder as his 

the founder, being in fact an extension basis. On the other hand Irenaeua 

of the principle of syzygies which Va- (i. n. i) states that Valentinus re- 

lentinus with a truer philosophical con- presented the first principle as a dyad 

ception had restricted to the derived ("App-qros or Bvdos, and Ziyn) : but 

essences. (2) The exposition of Hip- there is no evidence that he had any 

polytus throughout exhibits a system dhect or indirect knowledge of the 

at once more consistent and more wi'itiugs of Valentinus himself, and 

simple, than the luxuriant develop- Ms information was derived from the 

ments of the later Valentinians, such later disciples of the school, more 

as Ptolemeeus and Marcus. (3) The especially from the Ptolemasans. 
sequence of his statement points to 1 Iren. i. 4. i, 2, ii. 3. i, ii. 4. i, 3, 

the same conclusion. He gives a con- ii. 5. 1, ii. 8. i — 3, ii. 14. 3, iii. 25. 6, 

secutive account of some one system, 7, etc. 

turning aside from time to time to 2 Xi-en. i. 6. 3, i. 7. i sq., ii. 14. 3, 

notice the variations of different Va- ii. 15. 3 sq., ii. 20. 5, ii. 30. 3, etc. 
lentinian schools from this standard 3 ij-gn. i. 5. 2, ii. 14. 3 ; comp. 

and again resuming tiie main thread Hippol. vi. ^,4. 



The locali- 
sation of 
the plero- 
via carried 
out iu de- 

The con- 
with St 
Paiil's use 
of the term 

partly to 
the false 

The topographical conception of the pleroma moreover is carried out 
in the details of the imagery. The second Sophia, called also Achamoth, is 
the desire, the offspring, of her elder namesake, separated from her 
mother, cast out of tlio pleroma, and left 'stranded' in the void beyond \ 
being prevented from returning by the inexorable Horns who guards the 
frontier of the supramundane kingdom. The second Christ — a being com- 
l^ouuded of elements contributed by all the Jilons- — was sent down from the 
jileroma, first of all at the eve of creation to infuse something like order 
and to provide for a spiritual element in this lower world; and secondly, 
when He united Himself with the man Jesus for the sake of redeeming 
those who were capable of redemption^. At the end of all things Sophia 
Achamoth, and with her the spiritual portion of mankind, shall be redeemed 
and received up into the pleroma, while the psychical portion wiU be left 
outside to form anotlier kingdom under the dominion of their father the 
Demiurge. This redemption and ascension of Achamoth (by a perversion of 
a scriptural image) was represented as her espousals mth the Saviour, the 
second Christ; and the pleroma, the scene of this happy union, was called 
the bridal-chamber^ Indeed the localisation of the pleroma is as complete 
as language can make it. The constant repetition of the words ' within ' 
and 'without', 'above' and 'beneath', in the development of this philoso- 
phical and religious myth still further impresses this local sense on the term". 

In this topographical representation the connexion of meaning in the 
word pleroma as employed by St Paul and by Valentinus respectively 
seems at first sight to be entirely lost. When we read of the contrast be- 
tween the pleroma and the kenoma, the fulness and the void, we are 
natm*ally reminded of the x>lenum and the vaciiuin of physical specula- 
tions. The sense of pleroma, as expressing completeness and so denoting 
the aggregate or totality of the Divine powers, seems altogether to have 
disappeared. But in fact this antithesis of K€va>fia was, so far as wo can 
make out, a mere afterthought, and appears to have been borrowed, as 
Irenceus states, from tlie i:)hysical theories of Democritus and Epicurus". 
It would naturally suggest itself both because the opposition of iiKr]pr]s and 
K€vos was obvious, and because the word Kevafxa materially assisted the 
imagery as a description of the kingdom of waste and shadow. But in 

1 Ii'en. i. 4. I T^iyovaiv Iv <TKia7s 
[cr/cias] Kal Kevihuaros tottois e/c/3e(3pd- 
crdai K.T.X. Hie Greek MS reads Kal 
aKTiviifiaros, but the rendering of the 
early Latin translation ' in umbrae 
[et?J vacuitatis locis' leaves no doubt 
about the word in the original text. 
Tertullian says of this Achamoth {adv. 
Valent. 14) 'explosa est in loca lu- 
minis alieua ... in vacuum atque inane 
illud Epicm-i '. See note 6. 

- lien. i. 2. 6, Hippol. vl. 31. 

3 They quoted, as referring to this 
descent of the second Christ into the 
kenoma, the words of St Paul, Phil. 

ii. 7 €3.VTbv iKivbxiev ; Clem. Alex. Exc. 
Theod. 35 (p. 978). 

* Lren. i. 7. i Kal touto ehai vvfj.- 
<plov Kal vvij.<pr}v, vv/jLcpuiva 5^ rb wdv 
ir\-qp<i3na: comp. Hippol. vi. 34 6 wix- 
<pios avrrjs. 

* This language is so frequent that 
special references are needless. In 
L'en. ii. 5. 3 we have a still stronger 
expression, 'in ventre pleromatis '. 

^ L'en. ii. 14. 3 'Umbram autem et 
vacuum ipsorum a Democrito et Epi- 
cm'o sumentes sibimetipsis aptaverunt, 
quum ilh primum multum sermonem 
feceriut de vacuo et de atomis '. 


itself it is a false antithesis. The true antithesis appears in another, and borrowed 
probably an earlier, term used to describe the mundane kingdom. In this from phy- 
earlier representation, which there is good reason for ascribing to Valen- j^^^^ P , 
tinus himself, it is called not Keuco^a ' the void', but ioTepr^jxa ' the defi- -^^^ j.g. 
ciency, incompleteness '1. MoreoA'er the common phraseology of the appears in 
Valentinian schools shows that the idea suggested by this opposition to their com- 
KevoifjLa was not the original idea of the term. They speak of t6 TT\)]pcona ™°? pnra- 
Tcov aldvatv, to ttciv TrXi^pcoiia rav alcovav, * the whole aggregate of the 
yEons'2. And this (making allowance for the personification of the Jions) 
corresponds exactly to its use in St Paul. 

Again the teaching of the Valentinian schools supplies other uses The origi- 
which serve to illustrate its meaning. Not only does the supramundane pal mean- 
kingdom as a whole bear this name, but each separate ^on, of which that j°° shown 
kingdom is the aggregation, is likewise called a pleroma^ This designa- -ases, 
tiou is given to an jEon, because it is the fulness, the perfection, of which 
its mimdane counterpart is only a shadowy and defective copy. Nor does 
the narrowing of the term stop here. There likewise dwells in this higher 
region a pleroma, or eternal archetype, not only of every comprehensive 
mundane power, but of each individual man; and to wed himself with this 
heavenly partner, this Divine ideal of himself, must be the study of his life, interpre- 
The profound moral significance wiiich underlies the exaggerated Plato- tation of 
nism and perverse exegesis of this conception will be at once apparent. Jolm iv. 
But the manner in which the theory was carried out is curiously illus- ''' ^ * 
trated by the commentary of tlie Valentinian Ileracleon on our Lord's 
discourse with the Samaritan woman'*. This woman, such is his explana- 

1 Hippol. vi. 31 KaXeirat 5^ 8pos /x^v ment used by Hippolytus, plainly de- 

cvTos on a(popi'g€i drrb tov Tr\r]pwfjLaTos notes the whole, mundane region, 

^^w r6 varipriixa- fieTox^^s 5i on (xeri- Hippolytua does not use the word 

Xet Kcd TOV va-reprj/MaTos (i. e. as standing Kivoip-a, though so common in Irenseus, 

between the wXripwfxa and vffTiptjixa)- This fact seems to point to the earlier 

crTavpbs5^,oTi.TriTnjyepdK\}SKaldfxeTa- date of the Valentinian document 

voriTUJs, (is p.ij bvvaadai fxTjS^v tov vareprj- which he uses, and so to bear out the 

p.aTos KaTayiviaOai eyyiis tGiv evrb^ ttX:?- result arrived at in a previous note 

pdifxaTos aliLi^uv. Irenaus represents the (p. 264) that we have here a work of 

Marcosians as designating the Demi- Valentinus himself. The word vaTi- 

urge Kapvbs vaTeprifiaTos i. 17. 2, i. 19. pVf^'^ appears also in Exc. Theod. 22 

I, ii. praef. i, ii. i. i (comp. i. 14. t). (p. 974). 

This was perhaps intended originally ^ e.g. Hippol. vi. 34, Iren. i. 2. 6. 

as an antithesis to the name of the See especially Iren. ii. 7. 3 ' Quoniam 

Christ, who was Kapwbs irX-qpuixaTos. enim pleroma ipsorum triginta Aeones 

The Marcosians however apparently sunt, ipsi testantur '. 

meant Sophia Achamoth by this vari- ^ See the passages from Irenasua 

priiia. This transference from the quoted above, note i ; comp. Exc. 

whole to the part would be in strict Theod. 32, 33 (p. 977). Similarly 

accordance with their terminology : for \6yoi is a synonym for the ^ons, 

as they called the supramundane agons bpLcovvfxus tQ A6y^, Exc. Theod. 25 (p. 

irXrjpdi/jLaTa (Ii'en. i. 14. 2, 5; quoted in 975). 

Hippol. vi. 43, 46), so also by analogy * Heracleon in Orig. in loann. xiii, 
they might designate the mundane iv. p. 205 sq. The passages are collect- 
powers vaTeprifxara (comp. Iren. i. 16. ed in Stieren's Irenseus p. 947 sq. See 
3). The term, as it occurs in the docu- especially p. 950 oiferot [6 'RpaKXiuv'] ttjs 



nians ac- 
cept St 
Paul and 
St John, 

and quote 
them in 
support of 

tion, belongs to the spiritual portion of mankind. But she had had six^ 
husbands, or in other words she had entangled herself with the material 
world, had defiled herself with sensuous things. The husband however, 
whom she now has, is not her husband; herein she has spoken rightly: the 
Saviour in fact means 'her partner from the pleroma'. Hence she is 
bidden to go and call him ; that is, she must find ' her pleroma, that 
coming to the Saviour with him (or it), she may be able to obtain from 
Him the power and the union and the combination with her pleroma' {rfju 
bvvay.iv Koi rfjv evacriv Koi rfjv dvaKpaaiv ttjv irphs to TrX^pcoya avTtjs). ' For', 
adds Heracleon, ' He did not speak of a mundane {Koa-fxiKov) liusband when 
He told her to call him, since He was not ignorant that she had uo lawful 

Impossible as it seems to us to reconcile the Valentinian system with 
the teaching of the Apostles, the Yalentinians themselves felt no such 
difliculty. They intended their philosophy not to supersede or contradict 
the Apostolic doctrine, but to supplement it and to explain it on philo- 
sophical principles. Hence the Canon of the Valentiniaus comprehended 
the Canon of Catholic Christianity in all its essential parts, though some 
Valentinian schools at all events supplemented it with Apocryphal wri- 
tings. More particularly the Gospel of St John and the Epistles to the 
Colossians and Ephesiaus were regarded with especial favour; and those 
passages which speak of the pleroma are quoted more than once in their 
Avritings to illustrate their teaching. By isolating a few words from the 
context and interpreting tliem wholly without reference to their setting, 
they had no difliculty in finding a confirmation of their views, where we see 
only an incongruity or even a contradiction. For instance, their second 
Christ — the redeemer of the spiritual element in the mundane world — was, 
as we saw, compacted of gifts contributed by all the .^ons of the pleroma. 
Hence he was called ' the common fruit of the pleroma', ' the fruit of all the 
pleroma'^, 'the most perfect beauty and constellation of the pleroma ''; hence 

^ap-apelridos rdc \ey6/J.evov virb tov cu- 
TTJpos dvdpa. rb Tr\rjpwp.a etvai avTrjs, 
iva avv iKCLVu) yeuofiivT] Trpbs rhv auTTjpa 
Koplaeadai wap avroO rrjv dvvapiv Kal 
rrjv evucnv Kal tt]v dvaKpaaiv Tr]V irpbs 
rb Tr\7]pwpa aur^s ovvrjdri' oii yap 

irepl dvSpbs, (prjaL, KO(Tp.i.KOv iXeyev 

\eyu3v avTJ rbv auTTipa elpyjKivai., <i>w- 
vi)<Tbv (TOV TOV dvdpa Kal i\6k ivddde' 677- 
Xovvra rbv dirb tov TrXTjpwpaTos ffv- 
^vyov. Lower down Heracleon says 
■ijv avTTJs 6 dvrip iv tQ AIujvl. By this 
last expression I suppose he means 
that the great teon Man of the Ogdoad, 
the eternal archetype of mankind, com- 
prises in itself archetyi^es correspond- 
ing to each individual man and woman, 
not indeed of the whole human race 
(for the Valentinian would exclude the 
psychical and carnal portion from any 

participation in this higher region) 
but of the spiritual portion thereof. 

1 Origen expressly states that Hera- 
cleon read ?^ for irivTs. The number 
six was supposed to symbolize the 
material creatui-e; see Heracleon on 
' the forty and six years ' of John ii. 
20 (Stieren p. 947). There is no reason 
to think that Heracleon falsified the 
text here; he appears to have found 
this various reading already in his 

'^ The expression is 6 kolvos toO nXr)- 
pdjp.aTos KapTTos in Hippolytus vi. 32, 

34. 36 (pp. i90» 191. 19-' 193. 196)- In 
IreuEeus i. 8. 5 it is Kapiros iravrbs tov 

^ Iren. i. 2. 6 reXetiroroj' KdWos te 
Kal dcTpov tov Tr\T]puip.aTos, 


also he was designated ' All' (irav) and 'AH things' {wavTay. Accordingly, 
to this second Christ, not to the first, they applied these texts; Col. iii. n 
'And He is all things', Rom. xi. 36 'AH things are unto Him and from Him 
are all things', Col. ii. 9 ' In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead', 
Ephes. i. 10 ' To gather together in one aH things in Christ through God'^. 
So too they styled him EvSoktjtos, with a reference to Col. i. 19, because 
'all the pleroma was pleased through Him to glorify the Father '3. And 
inasmuch as this second Christ was according to the Valentinian theory 
instrumental in the creation of the mundane powers, they quoted, or rather 
misquoted, as referring to this participation in tlie work of the Demiurge, 
the passage Col. i. 16 ' In Him were created all things, visible and invisible, 
thrones, deities, dominions'*. Indeed it seems clear that these adaptations 
were not always afterthoughts, but that in several instances at least their 
nomenclature was originally chosen for the sake of fitting the theory to 
isolated phrases and expressions in the Apostolic writings, however much 
it might conflict with the Apostolic doctrine in its main lines^ 

The heretics called Docetae by Hippolytus have no connexion with Use of the 
docetism, as it is generally understood, i.e. the tenet that Christ's body t^^^^ hy 
was not real flesh and blood, but merely a phantom body. Their views on 1 ® -Uoce- 
this point, as represented by this father, are wholly diflerent^. Of their 
system generally nothing need be said here, except that it is largely satu- 
rated with Valentinian ideas and phrases. From the Valentinians they 
evidently borrowed their conception of the pleroma, by which they under- 
stood the aggregate, or (as localised) the abode, of the iEons. With them, 
as with the Valentinians, the Saviour is the common product of all the 
iEons''; and in speaking of him they echo a common Valentinian phrase 
'the pleroma of the entire J^ons'*. 

The Ophite heresy, Proteus-like, assumes so many various forms, that and by 
the skill of critics has been taxed to the utmost to bind it with cords two Ophite 
and extract its story from it. It appears however from the notices of sects. 
Hippolytus, that the term pleroma was used in a definite theological sense 
by at least two branches of the sect, whom he calls Naassenes and Peratae. 

Of the Naassenes Hippolytus tehs us that among other images bor- (i) Naas- 
rowed from the Christian and Jewish Scriptures, as well as from heathen senes. 
poetry, they described the region of true knowledge — their kingdom of 

^ Iren. i. 2. 6, i. 3. 4. &6paTa, Opbvoc, kvpl6tt]t£s, /SacrtXetat, OeS- 

2 Iren. i. 3. 4. The passages are TjjT-e?, XeLTOvpylar dio /cat 6 Geos avrov 

given in the text as they are quoted by virepvfwaep k.t.X. (the last -words being 

Irena3us from the Valentinians. Three taken from Pliil. ii. 9 sq.). 

out of the four are incorrect. 5 Thus they interpreted Ephes. iii. 

Iren. 1. 12. 4; comp, Exc. Tlieocl. 21 eh ndaas rds 7e!'€as rod al(2vos tcSv 

31 (P- 977) «^ ° KareXduv eiiSoKia rod alwvwv as referring to their generated 

SXov7]i>' eu aiiripyap wdv TO irXrjpwpLa Tjv sons: Iren. i. 3. i. Similar is the 

ffu/MaTiKws. use which they made of expressions in 

* Iren. i. 4. 5 Sttws iv avrQ ri TrdvTa the opening chapter of St John, where 

KTiffdy, ra opara Kal to. abpara, Bpbvoi, they found their first Ogdoad described: 

6ebTt)Tes, KvpwTrjres, where the mis- ib. i. 8. 5. 

quotation is remarkable. In Exc. ^ R. H. viii. 10 (p. 267). 

Theod. 43 (p. 979) the words run irdi'Ta ^ il). viii. 9. 

yip iv a&r^ iKTladi] to, opara Kai to. ^ ib. viii. 10 (p. 266). 





and corre- 
tion of 


use of the 

heaven, which wa,s entered by initiation into their mysteries — as the land 
flowing with milk and honey, 'which when the perfect (the true Gnostics, 
the fully initiated) have tasted, they are freed from subjection to kings {dl3a- 
(TiXfvTovi) and partake of the pleroma.' Here is a plain allusion to Joh. 
i. i6. ' This', the anonymous Naasseue writer goes on to say, 'is the ple- 
roma, through which all created things coming into being are produced 
and fulfilled {mnXripciiTaL) from the Uncreated' \ Here again, as in the 
Yalentinian system, the conception of the pleroma is strongly tinged with 
Platonism. The pleroma is the region of ideas, of archetypes, which 
intervenes between the author of creation and the material world, and 
communicates their specific forms to the phenomenal existences of the 

The theology of the second Ophite sect, the Peratae, as described by 
Hippolytus, is a strange phenomenon. They divided the universe into 
three regions, the uncreate, the self-create, and the created. Again the 
middle region may be said to con-espond roughly to the Platonic kingdom 
of ideas. But their conception of deity is entirely their own. They 
postulate three of every being; three Gods, three "Words, three Minds 
(i.e. as we may suppose, three Spirits), three Men. Thus there is a God 
for each region, just as there is a Man. In full accordance with this per- 
verse and abnormal theology is their apphcation of St Paul's language. 
Their Christ has three natures, belonging to these three kingdoms respec- 
tively ; and this completeness of His being is implied by St Paul in CoL 
i. 19, ii. 9, which passages are combined in their loose quotation or para- 
phrase, ' All the pleroma was pleased to dwell in him bodily, and there is 
in him all the godhead', i.e. (as Hippolytus adds in explanation) 'of this 
their triple division (t^j ovrco birjprj^ivr^s rptaSoj)"*. This application is 
altogether arbitrary, having no relation whatever to the theological mean- 
ing of the term in St Paul It is also an entire departure from the 
conception of the Cerinthians, Yalentinians, and Naassenes, in which this 
meaning, however obscured, was not altogether lost. These three heresies 
took a horizontal section of the universe, so to speak, and applied the 
term as coextensive with the supramundane stratum. The Peratae on the 
other hand divided it vertically, and the j)leroma, in their interpretation of 
the text, denoted the whole extent of this vertical section. There is 
nothing in common between the two applications beyond the fundamental 
meaning of the word, 'completeness, totahty'. 

The extant Gnostic work, called Pistis Sophia, was attributed at one 
time on insufficient grounds to Yalentinus. It appears however to 
exhibit a late development of Ophitism^, far more Christian and less 
heathen in its chai-acter than those already considered. In this work the 
word pleroma occurs with tolerable frequency; but its meaning is not 
easily fixed. Early in the treatise it is said that the disciples supposed a 
certain 'mystery', of which Jesus spoke, to be 'the end of all the ends' 
and 'the head (ice^aXr/i/) of the Universe' and 'the whole pleroma'^. 
Here we seem to have an allusion to the Platonic kingdom of ideas. 

1 R. H. V. 8. 2 R. H. V. 12. 

^ See Kcistlin in Theolog. Jalirh. 

Tubingen 1854, p. 185. 
* Pistis Soi)hia p. 3 sq. 


i.e. of intelligible being, of absolute truth, as reproduced in the Valeuti- 
niau ijleroma. And the word is used sometimes in connexion with the 
completeness of revelation or the perfection of knowledge. Thus our 
Lord is represented as saying to His disciples, ' I will tell you the whole 
mystery and the whole pleroma, and I will conceal nothing from you 
from this hour; and in perfection will I perfect you in every pleroma and 
in every perfection and in every mystery, which things are the perfection of 
all the perfections and the pleroma of all the pleromas'\ Elsewhere 
however Mary, to whom Jesus is represented as making some of His 
chief revelations, is thus addressed by Him ; ' Blessed art thou above 
{ivapa) all women that are on the earth, for thou shalt be pleroma of all 
the pleromas and perfection of all the perfections' 2, where the word must 
be used in a more general sense. 

One heresy still remains to be noticed in connexion with this word. Monoimus 
Hippolytus has preserved an account of the teaching of Monoimus the t^e Aia- 
Arabian, of whom previously to the discovery of this father's treatise we ^^^* 
knew little more than the name. In this strange form of heresy the 
absolute first principle is the uncreate, imperishable, eternal Man. I need 
not stop to enquire what this statement means. It is sufficient for the 
present purpose to add that this eternal Man is symbolized by the letter i, 
the 'one iota', the 'one tittle' of the Gospel^; and this i, as representing 
the number ten, includes in itself all the units from one to nine. 'This', 
added Monoimus, 'is (meant by) the saying (of scripture) All the ple- 
roma was pleased to dwell upon the Son of Man bodily'^. Here the 
original idea of the word as denoting completeness, totality, is still 

' i&. p. 15 sq.: comp. pp. 4, 60, 75, patently in the sense of * comple- 

187, 275. tion'. 

- ib. p. •zS sq. : comp. p. 56. On p. 7 ' Matt. v. 18. 

trXi^pwjjLa is opposed to dpxV) ap- * -R- -f-f- ■""• 13- 


The Epistle from Laodicea^. 

Different The diflFerent opinions respecting the epistle thus designated by 

theories St Paul, which have been held in ancient or modem times, will be seen 
classified, from the following table; 

1. An Epistle written hy the Laodiceans ; to 

(a) St Paul ; 
O) Epaphras ; 
(y) Colossse. 

2. An Epistle icritten hy St Paul from Laodicea. 

(a) I Timothy ; 
{p) I Thessalonians ; 
(y) 2 Thessalonians; 
(8) Galatians. 

3. An Epistle addressed to the Laodiceans by 

(a) St John (the First Epistle); 

(p) Some companion of St Paul (Epaphras or Luke) ; 

(c) St Paul himself; 

(i) A lost Epistle, 
(ii) One of the Canonical Epistles, 
(a) Hebrews ; 
(i3) Philemon; 
(y) Ephesiaus. 
(iii) The Apocryphal Epistle. 
In this maze of conflicting hypotheses we might perhaps be tempted to 
despair of finding our way and give up the search as hopeless. Yet I ven- 
ture to think that the true identification of the epistle in question is not, 
or at least ought not to be, doubtful. 
I An ^' '^^^ opinion that the epistle was addressed by the Laodiceans to 

epistle St Paul, and not conversely, found much support in the age of the Greek 
•written by commentators. It is mentioned by St Chrysostom as held by * some per- 
tbe Laodi- gons', though he himself does not pronounce a definite opinion on the sub- 
. , ' ject?. It is eagerly advocated by Theodore of Mopsuestia. He supposes 
of this ^^^^ ^^^^ letter of the Laodiceans contained some reflexions on the Colos- 
theory. sian Church, and that St Paul thought it good for the Colossians to hear 

1 The work of Anger, Ueber den elaborate, is less satisfactory. A later 

Laodicenerbrief (Leij)zig 1843), is very monograph by A. Sartori, Ueber den 

complete. He enumerates and dis- Laodi'cen^^r&riV/fLubeck 1853), is much 

cusses very thoroughly the opinions shghter and contributes nothing new. 

of his predecessors, omitting hardly '-^ ad loc. nv^s '\iyovcnv Sti ovxl ttjv 

anything relating to the literature of HavXov npos avrov^ direaTa\iJ.ii>r]v, dXXd 

the subject which was accessible at ttjv wap avrHiv Ilai/Xy 01) yap flive t^v 

Ihe time when he wrote. His expo- Trpdy Aao5i/c^as aWa. t^p iK Aaodi- 

Bitiou of his own view, though not less Keias. 



what their neighbours said of thera\ Theodoret, though not mentioning 
Theodore by name, follows in his footsteps". The same opinion is also 
expressed in a note ascribed to Photius in the (Bcumenian Catena. 
This view seems to have been very widely entertained in ancient 
times. It possibly underlies the Latin Version 'ea quae Laodicensium 
est'^: it is distinctly expressed in the rendering of the Peshito, 'that 
which was written by the Laodiceans'*. At a more recent date too it 
found great favour. It was adopted on the one hand by Calvin^ and 
Beza^ and Davenant and Lightfoot'', on the other by Baronius* and 
k Lapide and Estius, besides other very considerable names'. Latterly 
its popularity has declined, but it has secured the support of one or two 
commentators even in the present century. 

The underlying motive of this interpretation was to withdraw the sup- Keasons 
port which the apocryphal epistle seemed to derive from this reference, ^0^ i*- 
without being obliged at the same time to postulate a lost epistle of St 
Paul. The critical argument adduced in its support was the form of ex- 
pression, TTjv eK AaoSiKeias. The whole context however points to a different Objections 
explanation. The Colossian and Laodicean Epistles are obviously regarded ^^ it* 
as in some sense companion epistles, of which the Apostle directs an inter- 
change between the two churches. And again, if the letter in question had 

1 Eab. Maur. Op. n. p. 540 (Migne) 
'Non quia ad Laodicenses scribit. 
Unde quidam falsam epistolam ad 
Laodicenses ex nomine beati Pauli 
confingendam esse existimaverunt ; 
nee enim erat vera epistola. J^stima- 
verunt autem quidam illam esse, quce 
in hoc loco est signiiicata. Apostolus 
vero non [ad] Laodicenses dicit sed 
ex Laodicea; quam illi scripserunt 
ad apostolum, in quam aliqua repre- 
hensionis digna inferebantiu*, quam 
etiam hac de causa jussit apud eos 
legi, ut ipsi reprehendant seipsoa 
discentes quae de ipsis erant dicta 
etc' (see Spic. Solesm. i. p. 133). 

^ After repeating the argument 
based on the expression Trjv iK Aaodi- 
/cei'as, Theodoret says et'/cds 5^ avrovs rj 
rd iv KoXacrcrais "yevbiJ-eva alridcxaaOai, 
7} rd avrd tovtoh vevoarjKivai. 

•* Tliis however may be questioned. 
On the other hand Beza {ad loc), 
"Whitaker (Disputation on Scripture pp. 
108, 303, 468 sq., 526, 531, Paiker 
Society's ed.), and others, who explain 
the passage in this way, urge that it is 
required by the Greek Ik AaodiKeias, 
and complain that the other interpre- 
tation depends on the erroneous Latin 

* Or, ' that which was written from 


Laodicea.' The difference depends on 

the vocalisation of ff* «n ."^v which 

may be either (i) 'Laodicea,' as in w. 
13, 15, or (2) 'the Laodiceans,' as in 
the previous clause in this same ver. 

5 Calvin is very positive ; ' Bis 
hallucinati sunt qui Paulum arbi- 
trati sunt ad Laodicenses scripsissc. 
Non dubito quin epistola fuerit ad 
Paulum missa ... Impostura autem 
nimis crassa fuit, quod nebulo nescio 
quis hoc pratextu epistolam supponero 
ausus est adeo insulsam, ut nihil 
a Pauli spiritu magis alienum fingi 
queat.' The last sentence reveals the 
motive which unconsciously led so 
many to adopt this unnatural inter- 
pretation of Bt Paul's language. 

8 ad he. 'Multo foedius erraruut 
qui ex hoc loco suspicati sunt quau- 
dam fuisse epistolam Pauli ad Lao- 
dicenses quum potius significet 

Paulus epistolam aliquam ad se 
missam Laodicea, aut potius qua re- 
sponsuri essent Laodicenses Colos- 

7 Works II. p. 326. 

8 Aim. EccL s. a. 60, § xiii. 

9 e.g. Tillemont Mem. Eccl. i. p. 



been written by the Laodiceans to St Paul, why should he enjoin the Culos- 
sians to get it from Laoclicea ? How could he assume that a copy had been 
kept by the Laodiceans ; or, if kept, would be given up when required ? In- 
deed the difficulties in this hypothesis are so great, that nothing but the 
most imperious requirements of the Greek language would justify its 
acceptance. But the expression in the original makes no such demand. 
It is equally competent for us to explain r^v ck AaoSiKtlas either 'the 
letter written from Laodicea', or 'the letter to be procured from Laodi- 
cea ', as the context may suggest. The latter accords at least as well with 
Greek usage as the former i. 
Views '^^^ ^^^* majority of those who interpret the expression in this way 

respecting assume that the letter was written to (a) St Paul. The modifications of 
the person this view, which suppose it addressed to some one else, need hardly be 
addressed, considered. The theory for instance, which addresses it to {^) Epaphras^, 
removes none of the objections brought against the simpler hypothesis. 
Another opinion, which takes (y) the Colossians themselves to have been 
the recipients^, does indeed dispose of one difficulty, the necessity of 
assuming a copy kept by the Laodiceans, but it is even more irreconcile- 
able with the language of the context. Why then should St Paul so stu- 
diously charge them to see that they read it i Why above all should he 
say KOL vfie'is, ^ye also\ when they were tbe only persons who would read it 
as a matter of course ? 
2 A letter ^' ^ second class of identifications rests on the supposition that it 
written was a letter written from Laodicea, though not by the Laodiceans them- 
from Lao- selves. The considerations which recommend this hypothesis for accept- 
dicea by ^^^^ ^^,q ^j^g same as in the last case. It withdraws all support from the 
apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans, and it refrains from postulating a 
lost Apostolic epistle. It is not exposed to all the objections of the other 
theory, but it introduces new difficulties still more serious. Here a choice 
I Timothy ^^ several epistles is offered to us. (a) The First Epistle to Timothy. 
This view is distinctly maintained by John Damascene* and by Theophy- 
lact^; but it took its rise much earlier. It appears in the margin of the 
Philoxenian Syriac", and it seems to have suggested the subscriptions 
found in many authorities at the close of that epistle. The words iypa(f)rj 
ano AaobLiceias are found in AKL 47 etc., and many of these define the 

place meant by the addition rjns eo-rl fir]Tp6Tro\is i>pvyias rrjs naKanavfjs. 

A similar note is found in some Latin mss. It is quite possible that this 
subscription was prior to the theory respecting the interpretation of Col. 
iv. 16, and gave rise to it; but the converse is more probable, and in some 

^ See the note on iv, 16. irpos avrovs iTr€(TTa\fj.ii'T}v...d\\a rr]v 

* e.g. Storr Opusc. 11. p. 124 sq. nap' aJrtSv HavXip iK AaodiKeias ypa- 
^ So for instance Corn, a Lapide, as (peTcrav. 

an alternative, ' vel certe ad ipsos 6 ad loc. tIs 5^ rjv -q iK AaoSiKelas ; 

Colossenses, ut vult Theodor.'; but I ^ irpos Ti/jiddeov irpiiTrj- avri) yap iK 

do not find anything of the kind in Aao5iKelai iypdcpyj. rivh 8i <f>a<ni> Sti 

Theodoret. This view also commends rju ol AaoSiKcls Ilai^Xy iiria-TeiXav, dW 

itself to Beza. ovk 6t5a rl di> iKdv-qs ISei avrois vpos 

* Op. II. p. •214 (ed. Lequien) tV ^eXrluffiv. 

vpos TLfj.6deov npurrjv \iyei. But he * ad loc. ' Propter earn qu£e est ad 

adds Tivis (}>a<jlv 8tl oux^ tt]v YlaiXov Timotheum dixit.' 


Mss (a'" 74) the bearing of this subscription on Col. iv, 16 is empbasixcd, 
l8oi> 8f] Koi 77 (K Aao8iK€Las. This identification has not been altogether 
without support in later times'. (|3) The First Epistle to the Thessalo- 1 Thessa- 
nians. A final colophon in the Philoxenian Syriac asserts that it was louiaais. 
'written from Laodicea': and the same is stated in a later hand of d, 
'scribens a Laodicea.' Again an Ethiopic ms, though giving Athens as 
the place of writing, adds that it was ' sent with Timotheus, Tychicus, and 
Onesimus^.' This identification was perhaps suggested by the fact that 
I Thessalonians follows next after Colossians in the common order of St 
Paul's Epistles, (y) The Second Ejnstle to tlie Thessalonians. In the 2 Thessa- 
Peshito (as given by Schaaf ^) there is a final colophon stating that this lonians. 
epistle ' was written from Laodicea of Pisidia and was sent by the hand of 
Tychicus V Though the addition of Pisidia wrongly defines the place as 
Laodicea Combusta, instead of Laodicea ad Lycum, yet the mention of 
the messenger's name shows plainly that the identification with the missing 
epistle of Col. iv. 16 was contemplated. So too the Memphitic 'per Silva- 
num et Tychicum', and a Latin prologue 'per Titum et Oncsimum! 
Again, an Ethiopic ms points to the same identification, though strangely 
confused in its statements. In the superscription we are told that this 
epistle was written when the Apostle was at Laodicea, but in the sub- 
scription that it 'was written at Athens to Laodicea and sent by Tychicus'; 
while the prolegomena state that it was written and left at Laodicea, and 
that afterwards, when St Paul wrote his letter to the Colossians from 
Rome, he gave directions that it should be transmitted to the Thessalonians 
by the Colossians*. (S) The Ejnstle to the Galatians^. This might have Galatians. 
been chosen, partly because it affords no internal data for deciding where 
it was written, partly because like the Colossian Epistle it is directed 
against a form of Judaism, and the advocates of this hypothesis might not 
be careful to distinguish the two types, though very distinct in themselves. 
I find no support for it in the subscriptions, except the notice ' per Tychi- 
cum ' in some Slavonic mss. 

The special difficulties attending this class of solutions are manifold. Objections 
(i) It does not appear that St Paul had ever been at Laodicea when he to these 
wrote the letter to the Colossians. (2) All the epistles thus singled out solutions. 
are separated from the Colossian letter by an interval of some years at 
least. (3) In every case they can with a high degree of probability be 
shown to have been written elsewhere than at Laodicea. Indeed, as 
St Paul had been long a prisoner either at Csesarea or at Rome, when 
he wrote to Colossse, he could not have despatched a letter recently from 

^ It is adopted by Erasmus in his ^ In the editio princeps (Vienna 

paraphrase; 'vicissim vos legatis e- 1555) the latter part of this colophon, 

pistolam quee Tiniotheo scripta fuit ' and was sent by the hand of Tychi- 

ex Laodicensium urbe': but in hia cus,' is wanting. 

commentary he does not commit him- < Catal. Bibl. Bodl. Cod. ^thiop. 

self to it. For other names see Anger p. 23. 

p. 17, note k. 6 Bloch, quoted in Anger p. 17, 

" Catal. Bibl. Bodl. Cod. Mthiop. note 1. 
p. 23. 



3. A letter 
to the Lao- 
written by 
(a) St 
(6) A com- 
panion of 
St Paul. 
(c) St Paul. 

(i) A lost 

(ii) A Ca- 
(a) He- 

3. Thus we are thrown back on some form of the solution which 
makes it a Tetter written to the Laodiceans. And here we may at once 
reject the hypothesis that the writer was (a) St John^. The Fu-st Epistle 
of St John, which has been selected, was written (as is allowed on all hands) 
much later than this date. Nor again does St Paul's language fcxvour 
the altei'native, which others have maintained, that the letter in question 
was written by (6) one of St Paul's companions, e. g. Epaphras or Luke'. 
The writer must therefore have been (c) St Paul himself. 

On this assumption three alternatives offer themselves. 

(i) We may suppose that the epistle in question has been lost. It has 
been pointed out elsewhere that the Apostle must have written many letters 
which are not preserved in our Canon^. Thus there is no a priori ob- 
jection to this solution ; and, being easy and obvious in itself, it has found 
common support in recent times. If therefore we had no positive reasons 
for identifying the Laodicean letter with one of the extant epistles of our 
Canon, we might at once close with this accoimt of the matter. But 
such reasons do exist. And moreover, as we are obliged to suppose that 
at least three letters — the Epistles to the Colossians, to the Ephesians, 
and to Philemon — were despatched by St Paul to Asia Minor at the 
same time, it is best not to postulate a fourth, imless we are obliged to 
do so. 

(ii) But, if it was not a lost letter, with which of the Canonical 
Epistles of St Paul can we identify it wth most probability ? Was it 

(a) TJie Epistle to the Hehreics ? The supporters of this hypothesis are 
able to produce ancient evidence of a certain kind, though not such as 
carries any real weight. Philastrius, writing about the close of the fourth 
century, says that some persons ascribed the authorship of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews to Luke the Evangelist, and adds that it was asserted (appa- 
rently by these same persons, though this is not quite clear) to have been 
written to the Laodiceans*. Again in the Graeco-Latin MS G of St Paul's 

1 A conjecture of Lightfoot (^Wor'ki 
n. pp. 326, 339, London 1684), but he 
does not lay much stress on it. He 
offers it ' rather then conceive that any 
epistle of Paul is lost.' See also 
Anger p. 1 7, note m. 

^ Baumgarten Comm. ad loc, quoted 
by Anger p. 25, note g. 

^ Philippians p. 136 sq. 

* H(er. Isxxix ' Sunt aUi quoque 
qui epistolam Pauli ad Hebra;os non 
adserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut 
BamabaB esse apostoli aut Clementis 
de urbe Eoma episcopi ; alii autem 
Luc89 evangelistte aiunt epistolam 
etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam. Et 
quia addiderunt in ea qutedam non 
bene sentientes, inde non legitur in 
ecclesia; et si legitur a qiiibusdam, 
non tamen in ecclesia legitur populo, 
nisi tredecim epistolas ipsius, et ad 

Hebraeos interdum. Et in ea quia 
rhetorice scripsit, sermone plausibili, 
inde non putant esse ejusdem apostoh ; 
et quia factum Christum dicit in ea 
[Heb. iii. 2], inde non legitur; de 
pocnitentia autem [Heb. vi. 4, x. 26] 
propter Novatianos aeque. Ciun ergo 
factum dicit Christum, corpore, non 
diviuitate, dicit factum, cum doceat 
ibidem quod divina sit et paternje 
substantias filius, Qui est splendor 
gloria, inquit, et imago substantia 
ejus [Heb. i. 3] ' etc. Oehler punc- 
tuates the sentence with which we 
are concerned thus : * alii autem Lucas 
evangelistae. Aiunt epistolam etiam 
ad Laodicenses scriptam,' and in his 
note he adds ' videlicet Pauli esse 
apostoli.' Thus he supposes the 
clause to refer to the apocryphal 
Epistle to the Laodiceans : and Fa- 


Epistles, the Codex Boernerimius, jjrobably wTitten ia the niutb century, Supposed 
after the Epistle to Philemon, which breaks ofiF abruptly at ver. 20, a testimony 
vacant space is left, as if for the conclusion of this epistle : and then follows 
a fresh title 

ad laudicenses incipit epistola 

This is evidently intended as the heading to another epistle. No other 
epistle however succeeds, but the leaf containing this title is followed by 
several leaves, which were originally left blank, but were filled at a later 
date with extraneous matter. What then was this Epistle to the Laodi- 
ceans, which was intended to follow, but which the scribe was prevented 
from transcribing? As the Epistle to the Hebrews is not found in this 
MS, and as in the common order of the Pauline Epistles it would follow 
the Epistle to Philemon, the title has frequently been supposed to refer to 
it. This opinion however does not appear at all probable. Anger ^ in- 
deed argues in its favour on the groimd that in the companion MS F, the 
Codex Aug iensis, which (so far as regards the Greek text) must have been 
derived immediately from the same archetype ^, the Epistle to the Hebrews 
does really follow. But what are the facts ] It is plain that the Greek Eelation 
texts of G and F came from the same original: but it is equally plain that °^ ^- *o ^* 
the two scribes had different Latin texts before them — that of G being the 
Old Latin, and that of F Jerome's revised Vulgate. No argument there- 
fore derived from the Latin text holds good for the Greek. But the 
phenomena of both Mss alike '^ show that the Greek text of their common 
archetype ended abruptly at Philem. 20 (probably owing to the loss of the 
final leaves of the volume). The two scribes therefore were left severally 
to the resources of their respective Latin mss. The scribe of F, whose 
Greek and Latin texts are in parallel columns, concluded the Epistle to 
Philemon in Latin, though he could not match it with its proper Greek ; 
and after this he added the Epistle to the Hebrews in Latin, no longer 
however leaving a blank column, as he had done for the last few verses of 
Philemon. On the other hand the Latin text in G is interlinear, the Latin 

bricius explains the notice similarly. 1 Laodicenerhrief p. 29 sq. 
Such a reference however would be * If indeed the Greek text of F was 
quite out of jjlace here. The whole not copied immediately from G, as 
paragraph before and after is taken maintained by Dr Hort in the Journal 
up with discussing the Epistle to of Philology iu.t^. 6-]. The divergent 
the Hebrews ; and the interposition phenomena of the two Latin texts 
of just six words, referring to a seem to me unfavourable to this hypo- 
wholly different matter, is inconceiv- thesis ; but it ought not to be hastily 
able. We must therefore punctuate rejected. 

either ' alii autem Luca evangelists ^ Volkmar, the editor of Credner's 

aiimt epistolam, etiam ad Laodi- Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Ka- 

censes scriptam', or 'alii autem Lucas nan p. 299, with strange carelessness 

evangehstas aiunt ; epistolam etiam speaks of ' the appearance (das Vor- 

ad Laodicenses scriptam.' In either kommen) of the Laodicean Epistle in 

case it will mean that some persons both the Codices Augiensis and Boer- 

supposed the Epistle to the Hebrews nerianus wMch in other respects are 

to have been written to the Laodi- closely allied.' There is no mention 

ceans. of it in the Codex Augiensis. 



The spu- 
rious Lao- 

This iden 

(/3) Phile- 

words being written above the Greek to interpret them. "When therefore 
the Greek text came to an end, the scribe's work was done, for he could no 
longer interltneate. But he left a blank space for the remainder of Phile- 
mon, hoping doubtless hereafter to find a Greek ms from which he could 
fill it in; and he likewise gave the title of the epistle which he found next 
in his Latin copy, in Greek as well as in Latin. The Greek title however 
he had to supply for himself. This is clear from the form, which shows it 
to have been translated from the Latin by a person who had the very 
smallest knowledge of Greek. No Greek in the most barbarous age would 
have written AaoyAakhcac for AaoAikcac or AaoAikhnoyc The Aoy is 
a Latin corruption au for ao, and the termination <xc is a Latin's notion of 
the Greek accusative. Thus the whole word is a reproduction of the Latin 
' Laudicenses,' the en being represented as usual by the Greek »; ^ If so, 
we have only to ask what writing would probably appear as Eplstola ad 
Laudicenses in a Latin copy ; and to this question there can be only one 
answer. The apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans occurs frequently in 
the Latin Bibles, being found at least two or three centuries before the 
MS G was written. Though it does not usually follow the Epistle to 
Philemon, yet its place varies very considerably in different Latin copies, 
and an instance will be given below* where it actually occurs in this 

Thus beyond the notice in Philastrius there is no ancient support for 
the identification of the missing letter of Col. iv. i6 with the Epistle 
to the Hebrews ; and doubtless the persons to whom Philastrius alludes 
had no more authority for their opinion than their modern successors. 
Critical conjectm-e, not historical tradition, led them to this result. 
The theoiy therefore must stand or fiUl by its own merits. It has 
been maintained by one or two modern writers^, chiefly on the ground of 
some partial coincidences between the Epistles to the Hebrews and the 
Colossians; but the general character and purport of the two is wholly 
dissimilar, and they obviously deal with antagonists of a very different 
type. The insuperable difiiculty of supposing that two epistles so unlike 
in style were written by the same person to the same neighbourhood at 
or about the same time would still remain, even though the Pauline 
authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews should be for a moment granted. 

(j3) The Epistle to Philemon has been strongly advocated by Wieseler*, 

1 It is curious that this ms, which 
was written by an Irish scribe, should 
give the same corrupt form, Laudac- 
for Laodac-, which we find in the 
Book of Armagh ; see below, p. 282. 

2 See p. 286. It occurs also in this 
position in the list of Aelfiic (see below 
p. 362), where the order of the Pauline 
Epistles is ... Col., Hebr., i, 2 Tim., 
Tit., PhUem., Laod. 

3 See especially Schneckenburger 
Beitrdge p. 153 sq. 

* Some earlier writers who main- 

tained this view are mentioned by 
Anger, p. 25, note f. It has since been 
more fully developed and more vigor- 
ously urged by Wieseler, first in a 
programme Commentat. de Epist. Lao- 
dicena quam vulgo perditam putant 
1844, and afterwards in his well-known 
work Chronol. des Apostol. Zeit. p. 
405 sq. It may therefore be iden- 
tified with his name. He speaks of it 
with much confidence as ' scarcely 
open to a doubt,' but he has not 
succeeded in convincing others. 


as the letter to which St Paul refers in this passage. For this identification 
it is necessary to establish two points ; (i) that Philemon Uved not at 
Colossae, but at liaodicea; and (2) that the letter is addressed not to a 
private individual, but to a whole church. For the first point there is 
something to be said. Though for reasons explained elsewhere the abode 
of Philemon himself appears to have been at Colossse, wherever Archippus 
may have resided \ still two opinions may very fairly be held on this point. 
But Wieseler's ai-guments entirely fail to establish his other position. The This epis- 
theme, the treatment, the whole tenour of the letter, mark it as private : and tie does 
the mere fact that the Apostle's courtesy leads him to include in the open- ^ot answer 
ing salutation the Christians who met at Philemon's house is powerless to tions. 
change its character. Why should a letter, containing such intimate 
confidences, be read publicly in the Church, not only at Laodicea but at 
Colossse, by the express order of the Apostle ? The tact and delicacy 
of the Apostle's pleading for Ouesimus would be nuUified at one stroke 
by the demand for publication. 

(y) But may we not identify the letter in question with the Epistle to the (7) Ephe- 
Ephesians, which also is known to have been despatched at the same time ^^^^^• 
with the Epistle to the Colossians ? Unlike the Epistle to Philemon, it 
was addressed not to a private person but to a church or churches. If 
therefore it can be shown that the Laodiceans were the recipients, either 
alone or with others, we have found the object of our search. The argu- This is the 
ments in favour of this solution are reserved for the introduction to that tf^e solu- 
epistle. Meanwhile it is sufficient to say that educated opinion is tending, ^°^' 
though slowly, in this direction, and to express the belief that ulti- 
mately this view will be generally received 2. 

(iii) Another wholly different identification remains to be mentioned, (iii) The 
It was neither a lost epistle nor a Canonical epistle, thought some, but extant un- 
the writing which is extant under the title of the ' Epistle to the Laodi- ^'^igtii^+'o 
ceans,' though not generally received by the Church. Of the various the Laodi- 
opinions held respecting this apocryphal letter I shall have to speak ceans. 
presently. It is sufficient here to say that the advocates of its genuineness 
fall into two classes. Either they assign to it a place in the Canon with 
the other Epistles of St Paul, or they acquiesce in its exclusion, holding 
that the Church has authority to pronounce for or against the canonicity 
even of Apostolic writings. 

The apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans is a cento of Pauline General 
phrases strung together without any definite connexion or any clear object, character 
They are taken chiefly from the Epistle to the Philippians, but here and gp^rious 
there one is borrowed elsewhere, e. g. from the Epistle to the Galatians. epistle. 
Of course it closes with an injunction to the Laodiceans to exchange 
epistles with the Colossians. The Apostle's injunction in Col. iv. 16 
suggested the forgery, and such currency as it ever attained was due to 
the support which that passage was supposed to give to it. Unhke most 
forgeries, it had no ulterior aim. It was not framed to advance any 

1 See the introduction to the Epistle to Philemon. 
* See above p. 37. 


particular opinions, whetber heterodox or orthodox. It has no doctrinal 
peculiarities. Thus it is quite harmless, so far as falsity and stupidity 
combined can ever be regarded as harmless. 

Among the more important mss which contain this epistle are the 
following. The letters in brackets [ ] give the designations adopted in the 
apparatus of various readings which follows. 

1. Fuldensis [F]. The famous ms of the Vulgate N. T. wi-itten for 
Victor Bishop of Capua, by whom it was read and corrected in the years 
546, 547; edited by Ern. Ranke, Marhurgi et Lipsiae 1868. The Laodicean 
Epistle occurs between Col. and i Tim. without any indication of doubtful 
authenticity, except that it has no argument or table of contents, like the 
other epistles. The scribe however has erroneously interpolated part of 
the argument belonging to i Tim. between the title and the epistle ; sec 
p. 291 sq. of Ranke's edition. 

2. Cavetisis [K]. A MS of the whole Latin Bible, at the Monastery 
of La Cava near Salerno, ascribed to the 6th or 7th or 8th century. See 
Vercellone Var. Led. Vulg. Lat. Bihl. i. p. Ixxxviii, and also Mai Nov. 
Pair. Biblioth. L 2, p. 62. The readings in the Laodicean Epistle are 
here given from a collation which the Rev. J. Wordsworth, now Bishop 
of Salisbury, kindly made for me. They are not supplied by Vercel- 
lone. Laod. occurs in this MS between Col. and i Thess. (Mai p. 62). 
Dr Westcott (Smith's Diet, of the Bible s. v. Vulgate,-p. 17 13) has remarked 
that the two oldest authorities for the interpolation of the three heavenly 
witnesses in i Joh. v. 7, this La Cava ms and the Speculum published by 
Mai, also support the Laodicean Epistle (see Mai 1. c. pp. 7, 62 sq.). The 
two phenomena are combined in another very ancient ms, Brit. Mus. Add. 
1 1,852, described below. 

3. Armachanus [A]. A ms of the N. T., now belonging to Trinity 
College, Dublin, and known as the * Book of Armagh.' It was written in the 
year 807, as ascertained by Bp. Graves; see the Proceedings of the Roijal 
Irish Academy in. pp. 316, 356. The Laodicean Epistle follows Colossians 
on fol. 138, but -with the warning that Jerome denies its genuineness. The 
text of the Laodicean Epistle in this ms is not so pure as might have been 
anticipated from its antiquity. I owe the collation of readings which is 
given below to the kindness of Dr Reeves, who is engaged in editing the ms. 

4. Darmstadiensis [D]. A fol. ms of the whole Bible, defective from 
Apoc. xxii. 12 to the end, now in the Grand-ducal library at Darmstadt, 
but formerly belonging to the Cathedral Library at Cologne ; presented 
by Hermann Pius, Archbishop of Cologne from a.d. 890 — 925. Laod. fol- 
lows Col. A collation was made for Anger, from whom (p. 144) this account 
is taken. 

5. Bernensis no. 334 [B]. A 4to ms of miscellaneous contents, end- 
ing with the Pauline Epistles, the last being the Epistle to the Laodiceans; 
written in the 9th cent. The Laodicean Epistle is a fragment, ending with 
' Gaudete in Christo et praecavete sordibus in lucre' (ver. 13), This account 
is taken by Anger from Sinner Catal. Cod. MSS. Bibl. Bern. i. p. 28. In 
his Addenda (p. 179) Anger gives a collation of this ms. 

6. Toleianus [T]. A ms of the Latin Bible belonging to the Cathedral 
Library at Toledo, and written about the Stii century: see Westcott in Smith's 


Diet, of the Bible, s. v. Vulgate p. 17 10, Vercellone Var. Lect. i. p. Ixxxiv. 
sq. The readings in the Laodicean Epistle are taken from the copy of 
Palomares given in Bianchini Vind. Canon. Script. Vulg. Lat. Edit. p. 
excv (Romae, 1740). In my first edition I had followed Joh. Mariana 
Schol. in Vet. et Nov. Test. p. 831 (Paris, 1620), where also this epistle is 
printed in full from the Toledo ms. The two differ widely, and the copy 
of Mariana is obviously very inaccurate. Anger (see p. 144) does not 
mention Bianchini's copy. In this jis Laod. follows Col. 

7. Parisiensis Reg. Lat. 3 (formerly 3562)^ [Pj]. A Latin Bible, in 
one volume fol., called after Anowaretha by whom it was given to the 
monastery of Glanfeuille (St Maur), and ascribed in the printed Catalogue 
to the 9th cent. Laod. follows Col. on fol. 379. 

8. Parisiensis Reg. Lat. 6 [Pg]. A ms of the Latin Bible in 4 vols, 
fol., according to the Catalogue probably written in the lotli cent. [?]. It 
belonged formerly to the Due de Noailles. Laod. follows Col. It contains 
numerous corrections in a later hand either between the lines or in the 
margin. The two hands are distinguished as Pj*, P2**- 

9. Parisiensis Reg. Lat. 250 (formerly 3572) [P3]. A fol. ms of the 
N. T., described in the Catalogue as probably belonging to the end of the 9th 
cent. Laod. follows Col. It has a few corrections in a later hand. The 
two hands are distinguished as P3*, P3**. 

These three Parisian mss I collated myself, but I had not time to ex- 
amine them as carefully as I could have wished. 

10. Brit. Mus. Add. 11,852 [G]. An important MS of St Paul's 
Epistles written in the 9th cent. It formerly belonged to the monastery of 
St Gall, being one of the books with which the library there was enriched by 
Hartmot who was Abbot from a.d. 872 to 884 or 885, Laod. follows Heb. 
and has no capitula like the other epistles. 

11. Brit. Mus. Add. 10,546 [CJ. A fol. ms of the Vulgate, commonly 
known as 'Charlemagne's Bible,' but probably belonging to the age of 
Charles the Bald (f 877). Laod. stands between Heb. and Apoc. It has 
no argument or capitula. 

12. Brit. Mus. Reg. i. E. vii, viii [R]. An English ms of the Latin 
Bible from Christ Church, Canterbury, written about the middle of the 
loth cent. Laod. follows Heb. This is the most ancient ms, so far as I am 
aware, in which the epistle has capitulations. It is here given in its fullest 
form, and thus presents the earliest example of what may be called the 
modern recension. 

13. Brit. Mus. Harl. 2833, 2834 [HJ. A ms of the 13th cent, written 
for the Cathedral of Angers. Laod. follows Apoc. 

The readings of the four preceding mss are taken from the collations 
in Westcott Canon Appx. E p. 572 sq. (ed. 4). 

14. Brit. Mus. Harl. 3 131 [Hg]. A smallish 4to of the 12th cent., 
said to be of German origin, with marginal and interlinear glosses in some 
parts. Laod. stands between Philem. and Ileb. It has no heading but 
only a red initial letter P. At the end is ' Expl. Epla ad Laodicenses. 
Prologus ad Ebreos.' 

^ So at least I find the number given iu my notes. But in Bentl. Crit. Sacr. 
p. xxxvii it is 3561. 


15. Brit. Mus. Sloane 539 [S]. A small fol. of the 12th cent., said to be 
German. It contains St Paul's Epistles with glosses. The gloss on 
Col. iv. 16 * et ea quae est Laodicensium etc' runs ' quam ego eis misi ut ipsi 
michi ut videatis hie esse responsum.' Laod. follows Heb., and has no 

The two last mss I collated myself. 

16. Bodl. Laud. Lat. 13 (formerly 810) [Li]. A 4to MS in double 
columns of the 13th cent, containing the Latin Bible. See Gated. Bibl. Laud. 
Cod. Lat. p. 10. Laod. follows Col. Notwithstanding the date of the ms, 
it gives a very ancient text of this epistle. 

17. Bodl. Laud. Lat. 8 (formerly 757) [L,]. A fol. ms of the Latin 
Bible, belonging to the end of the 12th cent. See Catal. Bibl. Laud. Cod. 
Lat. p. 9. This is the same ms, which Anger describes (p. 145) as 115 C 
(its original mark), and of which he gives a collation. Laod. stands between 
2 Thess. and i Tim. 

I am indebted for collations of these two Laudian wss to the kindness 
of the Rev. J. Wordsworth, Fellow of Brasenose College. 

18. Vindoh. 287 [V]. The Pauline Epp., written by Marianus Scotus 
(i.e. the Irishman), a.d. 1079. See Alter Nov. Test, ad Cod. Vindob. Graces 
Expressum 11. p. 1040 sq., Denis Cod. 3ISS Lat. Bibl. Vindob. i. no. Iviii, 
Zeuss G-ramrnatica Celtica p. xviii (ed. 2), The Epistle to the Laodiceans 
is transcribed from this ms by Alter 1. c. p. 1067 sq. It follows Col. 

19. Trill. Coll. Cantabr. B. 5. i [X]. A fol. ms of the Latin Bible, 
written probably in the 12th century. Laod. follows Col. I have given a 
collation of this ms, because (like Brit. Mus. Reg. i. E. viii) it is an early 
example of the completed form. The epistle is preceded by capitula, as 

iNCipnjNT Capitula Epistole ad Laodicenses. 

1. Paulus apostolus pro Laodicensibus domino gratias refert et horta- 
tur eos ne a seductoribus decipiantur. 

2. De manifestis vinculis apostoli in quibus letatur et gaudet. 

3. Monet Laodicenses apostolus ut sicut sui audierunt praesentia ita 
retineant et sine reti'actu faciant. 

4. Hortatur apostolus Laodicenses ut fide sint lirmi et quae Integra et 
vera et deo placita sunt faciant. et salutatio fratrum. Expliciunt Capitu- 
la. Incipit Epistola beati Pauli Apostoli ad Laodicenses. 

These capitulations may be compared with those given by Dr Westcott 
from Reg. L E. viii, with which they are nearly identical. 

Besides these nineteen mss, of which (with the exception of Cavensis) 
collations are given below, it may be worth while recording the following, 
as containing this epistle. 

Among the Lambeth mss are (i) no. 4, large folio, 12th or 13th cent. 
Laod. stands between Col. and i Thess. (ii) no. 90, small folio, 13th or 
1 4th cent. Laod. stands between Col. and i Thess. without title or heading 
of any kind. Apparently a good text, (iii) no. 348, 4to, 15th cent. Laod. 
stands between Col. and 1 Thess., without heading etc. (iv) no. 544, 8vo, 
15th cent. Laod. stands between Col. and i Thess., without heading etc. 
(v) no. 1 152, 4to, 13th or 14th cent. Laod. occupies the same position as 
in the four preceding MSS and has no heading or title. The first and last 


of these five mss are collated by Dr Westcott {Canon 'p. S7^ sq.). I in- 
spected them all. 

In the Bodleian Library at Oxford, belonging to the Canonici collection, 
are (i) Canon. Bibl. 82 (see Catal. p. 277), very small 4to, 13th cent,, con- 
taining parts of the N. T, St Paul's Epp. are at the end of the volume, 
following Apoc. Laod. intervenes between Tit. and Philem., beginning 
' Explicit epistola ad titum. Incipit ad laud.', and ending ' Explicit epistola 
ad laudicenses. Incipit ad phylemonem '. (ii) Canon. Bibl. 7 (see Catal. 
p, 251), small 4to, beginning of 14th cent., containing Evv., Acts, Cath. 
Epp., Apoc, Paul. Epp. Laod. is at the end. (iii) Canon. Bibl. 16 {Catal. 
p. 256), small 4to, containing the N. T., 15th cent., written by the hand 
*Stephani de Tautaldis'. Laod. follows CoL (iv) Canon. Bibl. 25 {Catal. 
p. 258), very small 4to, mutilated, early part of the 15th cent. It contains 
a part of St Paul's Epp. (beginning in the middle of Gal.) and the Apoca- 
lypse, Laod. follows Col. For information respecting these mss I am 
indebted to the Rev, J. Wordsworth. 

In the University Library, Cambridge, I have observed the Epistle to the 
Laodiceans in the following mss. (i) Dd. 5. 52 (see Catal. i. p. 273), 4to, 
double columns, 14th cent. Laod. is between Col, and i Thess. (ii) Ee. 
I. 9 (see Catal. 11. p. 10), 4to, double columns, very small neat hand, 15th 
cent. It belonged to St Alban's. Laod. is between Col. and i Thess. 
(iii) Mm. 3. 2 (see Catal. iv. p. 174), fol, Latin Bible, double columns, 13th 
cent. Laod. is between Col. and i Thess., but the heading is ' Explicit 
epistola ad Colocenses, et hie incipit ad Thesalocenses', after which Laod, 
follows immediately. At the top of the page is *Ad Laudonenses '. 
(iv) Ee. I. 16 (see Catal. 11. p. 16), 4to, double columns, Latin Bible, 13th 
or 14th cent. The order of the N. T. is Evv., Acts, Cath. Epp., Paul, Epp., 
Apoc, Here Laod. is between Heb. and Rev.; it is treated like the other 
books, except that it has no prologue. 

In the College Libraries at Cambridge I have accidentally noticed the 
following MSS as containing the epistle; for I have not undertaken any 
systematic search, (i) St Petei-'s, 0. 4. 6, fol., 2 columns, 13th cent., Latin 
Bible. The order of the N. T. is Ew., Acts, Cath. Epp., Paul Epp., Apoc. 
The Epistle to the Laodiceans is between Heb. and Apoc. (ii) Sidney A. 
5, II, fol., 2 columns, Latin Bible, 13th cent. The order of the N. T, is 
Evv., Paul, Epp., Acts, Cath. Epp., Apoc. ; and Laod. is between 2 Thess. 
and I Tim, (iii) Emman. 2. i. 6, large fol., Latin Bible, early 14th cent. The 
order of the N. T. is diflFerent from the last, being Evv., Acts, Cath. Epp., 
Paul. Epp., Apoc; but Laod. is in the same position, between 2 Thess. and 
I Tim. 

Notice of a few other mss, in which this epistle occurs, will be found 
in Hody de Bibl. Text. Orig. p. 664, and in Anger p. 145 sq. 

This list, slight and partial as it is, will serve to show the wide circula- 
tion of the Laodicean Epistle. At the same time it wiU have been ob- 
served that its position varies very considerably in different copies. 

(i) The most common position is immediately after Colossians, as the 
notice in Col, iv, 16 would suggest. This is its place in the most ancient 
authorities, e. g. the Fulda, La Cava, and Toledo mss, and the Book of 


(ii) Another position is after 2 Thess. So Laud. Lat. 8, Sidn. A. 5. 11, 
Emman. 2. i. 6 : see also mss in Hody Bibl. Text. Orig. p. 664. It must 
be remembered that in the Latin Bibles the Epistles to the Thessalonians 
sometimes precede and sometimes follow the Epistle to the Colossians. 
Hence we get three arrangements in different aiss; (i) i, 2 Thess., Col. 
Laod. ; (2) Col., Laod., i, 2 Thess.; (3) Col, i, 2 Thess., Laod. 

(iii) It occurs at least in one instance between Titus and Philemon ; 
Oxon. Bodl. Canon. 82. Mai also {Nov. Pair. Bibl. i. 2. p. 63) men- 
tions a ' very ancient lis ', iu which it stands between Titus and i John ; 
but he does not say how Titus and i John appear in such close neighbour- 

(iv) Again it follows Philemon in Brit. Mus. Harl. 3 131. This also 
must have been its position in the Latin sis which the scribe of the Codex 
Boemerianus had before him : see above p. 2S0. 

(v) Another and somewhat common position is after Hebrews ; e. g. 
Brit. Mus. Add. 11,852, Add. 10,546, Reg. i. E. viii, Sloane 539, Camb, 
Univ. Ee. i. 16, Pet. 0. 4. 6. See also Hody 1. c. 

(vi) It is frequently placed at the end of the New Testament, and so 
after the Apocalypse when the Apocalypse comes last, e.g. Harl. 2833. 
Sometimes the Pauline Epistles follow the Apocalypse, so that Laod. occurs 
at the end at once of the Pauline Epistles and of the N. T. ; e. g. Bodl. 
Canon. Lat. 7. 

Other exceptional positions, e. g. after Galatians or after 3 John, are 
foimd in versions and printed texts (see Anger p. 143) ; but no authority 
of Latin mss is quoted for them. 

The Code.v Fuldensis, besides being the oldest MS, is also by far the 
most trustworthy. In some instances indeed a true reading may be pre- 
served in later siss, where it has a false one; but such cases are rare. 
The text however was already corrupt in several places at this time; 
and the variations in the later mss are most frequently attempts of the 
scribes to render it inteUigible by alteration or amplification. Such 
for instance is the case with the mutilated reading 'quod est' (ver. 13), 
which is amplified, even as early as the Book of Armagh, into 'quod- 
cunque optimum est', though there can be little doubt that the expression 
represents to \onr6v of Phil. iii. 2, and the missing word therefore is ' reli- 
quum'. The gi-eatest contrast to F is presented by such mss as RX, where 
the epistle has not only been filled out to the amplest proportions, but also 
supplied with a complete set of capitulations like the Canonical books. 
Though for this reason these two mss have no great value, yet they are 
interesting as being among the oldest which give the amplified text, and I 
have therefore added a collation of them. On the other hand some much 
later mss, especially Li, preserve a very ancient text, which closely resem- 
bles that of F.i 

1 The epistle has been critically In the apparatus of various readings, 

edited by Anger LaodtcenerfcriV/ p. 155 which is subjoined to the epistle, I 

sq. and Westcott Canore App. E. p. 572. have not attempted to give such mi- 

I have already expressed my obhgations nute differences of spelling as e and ae, 

to both these writers for their colla- or c and t (Laodicia, Laoditia), nor is 

tions of MSS. the punctuation of the mss noted. 



Paulus Apostolus non ab hominibus neque per hominem seJ per Test of the 
Iliesum Christum, fratribus qui sunt Laodiciae. * Gratia vobis at pax ^P^'^*'^^- 
a Deo patre et Domino Ibesu Cliristo. 

^Gratias ago Cliristo per omnem orationem meam, quod perma- 
nentes estis ia eo et perseverantes in operibus eius, promissum ex- 
pectantes in diem iudicii. * Neque destituant vos quorundam vanilo- 
quia insinuantium, ut vos avertant a veritate evangelii quod a me 
praedicatur. * Et nunc faciet Deus ut qui sunt ex me ad profectum 
veritatis evangelii deservientes et facientes benignitatem operum quae 
salutis vitae aeternae. 

* Et nunc palam sunt vincula mea quae patior in Christo ; quibus 

Inc. ad laodicenses F ; Incipit epistola (aepistola K) ad laodicenses (laudicen- 
ses KPgB) KBDTP1P2P3CEH2SV; Epistola ad laodicenses M (if this heading be 
not due to the editor) ; Incipit epistola pauli ad laodicenses GH^ ; Incipit epistola 
beati pauli ad laodicenses X; Incipit aepistola ad laudicenses sed hirunimus 
earn negat esse pauli A : no heading in L^LjHg. 

apostolus] o;«. KTM. hominibusj homine G. ihesum christum] christum 
ihesum T. christum] add. ' et deum patrem omnipotentem qui suscitavit eum 
a mortuis' EX. fratribus qui sunt] his qui sunt fratribus A. For fratribus 
B has fratres, laodiciae] laudociae T ; ladoicie L ; laudaciae A ; laudiciae KE ; 
laodiceae B. 

2. patre] et patre nostro L^; patre nostro H^HoSM; nostro A. domino] 
add. nostro P2P3EGL2. 

3. christo] deo meo DPiPgPgCLj; deo meo et christo ihesu EX. oratio- 
nem omnem] homnem horationem K. meam] memoriam M. permanentes 
estis] estis permanentes AGE. in operibus eius] in operibus bonis H^HjS ; 
am. KBDTPjPgPsCM. promissum expectantes] promissum spectantes T ; et 
promissum expectantes M; promissionem expectantes V; sperantes promissio- 
nemAG; sperantes promissum EX. diem] die BTDPiPaGCEHjHaSLiVMX ; 
diae K. iudicii] iudicationis GEX. 

4. neque] add. enim E. destituant] distituant A ; destituunt Hj ; 
destituat M, Spec; destituit KDTP1P3CM ; distituitB; destitui Pg. vanilo- 
quia] vaniloquentia KBDTP^PjPjGC VM ; vaneloquentia, Spec. insinuantium] 
insinuantium se GM; insanientium Hj^S. ut] hut K; sed ut BAT; sed peto 
ne E; seductorem ne X. avertant] Spec; evertant FKTMLj; evertent B. 
evangelii] aevanguelii A {and so below). a] ha K. 

5. et nunc... veritatis evangelii] om. L. faciet deus] deus faciet AG. 
ut] hut K; add. sint G. qui] que {altered from qui) P3* (or P3**). me] 
add. perveniant KTM; add. proficiant V. ad profectum] imperfectum A; ad 
perfectum E ; in profectum G. veritatis evangelii] evangelii veritatis V. de- 
servientes] add. sint P2**P3**HjH2S. For deservientes EX have dei servientes. 
et facientes] repeated in L^. operum] hoperum K; eorum EX; operam T; 
opera Lj. quae] om. M; add. sunt AP2**GCEHjH2SVX. It is impossible to 
say in many cases ivhether a scribe intended operum quae or operumque, Banke 
prints operumque in F. salutis] add. L^ . vitae] om. K. 

6. nunc] n5 = non Lj . palam sunt] sunt palam G ; sunt {om. palam) A. 


Textof the laetor et gaudeo. ^Et hoc mihi est ad salutem perpetuam : quod 

episJe. ipsum factum orationibus vestris et administrante Spiritu sancto, 

sive per vitam sive per mortem. ® Est enim mihi vivere in Christo 

et mori gaudium. ' Et id ipsum in vobis faciet misericordia sua, ut 

eandem dilectionem habeatis et sitis unianimes. 

'" Ergo, dilectissimi, ut audistis praesentia mei, ita retinete et facite 
in timore Dei, et erit vobis vita in aeternum : ''Est enim Deus qui 
operatur in vos. *^ Et facite sine retractu quaecumque facitis. 

'^ Et quod est [reliquum], dilectissimi, gaudete in Christo ; et prae- 
cavete sordidos in lucre, " Omnes sint petitiones vestrae palam apud 
Deum ; et estote firmi in sensu Christi '* Et quae integra et vera et 

Christo] add. Ihesu (iesu) DP1P2P3CVX. quibus] in quibns KTEMPj. 

et] ut C. 

7. mihi] michi H^S {and so below); enim {for mihi) M. factum] fletum 
IITL2M; factum est P3**HjS. orationibus] operationibus B. vestris] meis 
DPj. et] est KTM : cm. GELjX. administrante spiritu sancto] adminis- 
trantem {or ad ministrantem) spiritum sanctum FBTLj-, amministrante 
spiritum sanctum DCPjPj* {but there is an erasure in Pj), For administrante 
LjX have amministrante ; and for spiritu sancto G transposes and reads sancto 
spiritu. per mortem] mortem {om. per) H^ . 

8. mihi] om. M. vivere] vivere vita DTPjPoPjCVHjHjS ; vere vita 
FEXjRMX; vera vita B; vere {altered into vWeve prima manu) -vita, h^. gaudium] 
lucrum et gaudium A ; gaudium ut lucrum KnP^** 5 gaudium vel lucrum HjS. 

9. et] qui V. id ipsum] in ipsum FBLj; in idipsum L^V; ipsum TPjGM; 
ipse AHiHjSRX. in vobis] vobis F^; in nobis Hg. misericordia sua] 
misericordiam suam FBDAPjPjPsCH^HjRSVLjLjX {but written misericordia 
BUB. in several cases). ut] hut K. et] otti. Lj; ut V. unianimes] unani- 
mes BDTPiPjPgGCHiELjLaVMSX ; hunauimes K. 

10. ergo] ego Hj. ut] hut K; et Lj. praesentia mei] praesentiam ei 
DP; praesentiam mei KT; praesentiam G**; in praesentia mei P3**; praesen- 
tiam mihi M; presenciam eius Lj; praesentiam dei A; prassentiam domini (dni) 
P2**HiH2S. ita] om. KDPiP2**P3CX. retinete] retinere A. in] cum 
TM; om.B. timore] timorem AB. dei] domini HjS. vita] pax et vita 
EX. in aeternum] in aeterno A; in aeterna G*; aeterna (eterna) G**PLi. 

11. enim] om.B. operatur] hoperatur K. vos] vobis KGATH^HjSR 
YV.** {or P2*) P3**MX. 

12. retractu] retractatu BP2RL2; retractatione AGV; tractuT; reatu HjS. 
In Pg** ut peccato is added; in Hj t peccato. quaecumque] quodcumque TM. 

13. quod est reliquum] quod est FKBTDPiP2*P3*ECLiL2MX ; quod est 
optimum GHiHjSV; quodcunque optimum est A; quodcunque est obtimum 
Pj**; quod bonum est P3**: see p. 290. dilectissimi] dilectissime B. christo] 
domino DP1P2P3CX. sordidos] add. omnes P2**HiH2S; add. homines A. 
in] ut Lj. lucre] lucrum RX. 

14. omnes] in omnibus G; homines {attached to the preceding sentence) 
KTM. petitiones] petiones T. sint] omitted here and placed after palam 
HjS. apud] aput F ; ante AG. deum] dominmn A. estote] stote T. 
firmi in sensu christi] sensu firmi in christo ihesu R. 

15. quae] add, sunt R. ulll•^;ra] intigra A. vera] add. sunt DPjP2P3 


pudica et iusta et amabilia, facite. '' Et quae audistis et accepistis in Text of the 
corde retinete ; et erit vobis pax. ^^ 

'* Salutant vos sancti. 
'' Gratia Domini Ihesu cum spiritu vestro. 

^^'Et facite legi Colosensibus et Colosensium vobis. 
CYK. pudica et iusta] iusta et pudica E. iusta] iusta et casta AGV; 

casta et iusta P2**HiH2S. amabilia] add. sunt KTH^HjSM; add. et sancta 


16. et] om. K. audistis] add. et vidistis Lj. accepistis] accipistis A. 
pax] add. ver. i-j, salutate omnes fratres (sanctos for fratres GV) in osculo 
sancto AGP2**HiH2SRVX. 

18. sancti] omnes sancti AGEH^SVX; sancti omnes Jl„; add. in christo 
ihesu EX. 

19. domini ihesu] domini nostri ibesu (iesu) claristi KDTAP^PjPgGCH^HjS 

20. et] add. banc H^HaSPs**. legi] add. epistolam L1P3**. colosen- 
sibus et] om. FKTDPiPj'PsCVLiLa . colosensium] adi. epistolam Lg. TJie 
words colosensibus, colosensium, are commonly written with a single s, more 
especially in the oldest MSS. In L^ the form is cholosensium, in K colossensium. 

The last sentence et facite etc. is entirely omitted in M. In EX it is ex- 
panded into et facite legi colosensibus banc epistolam et colosensium (colosen- 
sibus E) vos legite. deus autem et pater domini nostri ibesu christi custodiat 
vos immaculatos in christo ihesu cui est honor et gloria in secula seeulorum. 

Subscriptions. Explicit P^PgHj; Exp. ad laodicenses F; Explicit epistola 
ad laodicenses (laudicenses E) DPiGCH^SRVX; Finis T. There is no subscrip- 
tion in AL^Lj, and none is given for M. 

The following notes are added for the s:i\e of elucidating one or two Notes on 
points of difBculty in the text or interpretation of the epistle. ^^^ epis- 

4 Neque] This is the passage quoted in the Speculum § 50 published by 
Mai Nov. Pair. Bibl. i. 2. p. 62 sq., * Item ad Laodicenses : Neque destituat 
vos quonindam vaneloquentia {sic) insinuantium, ut vos avertaut a veritate 
evangehi quod a me praedicatur'. We ought possibly to adopt the reading 
' destituat... vaniloquentia' of this and other old siss in preference to the 
'destituaut...vaniloquia' of F. ' Vaniloquium ' however is the rendering of 
fiaraio'Xoyia I Tim. i. 6, and is supported by such analogies as inaniloquium, 
maliloquium, multiloquium, stultiloquium, etc. ; see Hagen Sprachl. Erdrter. 
zur Vulgata p. 74, Roensch Das Neue Testament Tertullians p. 710. 

destituant] Properly '■leave in the lurcW and so 'cheaV, ^beguile', e.g. 
Cic. pro Rose. Am. 40 ' induxit, decepit, destituit, adversariis tradidit, omni 
fraude et perfidia fefellit.' In Heb. ix, 26 etr dderTjaiv t^s afiapTias is trans- 
lated 'ad destitutionem peccati'. The original here may have been e^ana- 
T-qaaxTiv or a6tTri(Ta)(Tiv. insinuantium] In late Latin this word means 

little more than 'to communicate', 'to inculcate', 'to teach'; see the refer- 
ences in Roensch Itala u. Vulgata p. 387, Heumann-Hesse Handlexicon 
des r'dmischen Rechts s. v., Ducange Glossarium s. v. So too 'insinuator' 
Tertull. ad Nat. ii. i, ' insinuatrix ' August. Ep. no (11. p. 317). In Acta 
xvii. 3 it is the rendering of naparidefjifvos. 



Notes on 5 ut qui sunt etc.] The passage, as it stands, is obviously corrupt ; and 

the epis- a comparison with Phil. i. 12 ra kut e'/ie fiaXKov ds npoKonrjv tov evay- 
yeXiov iXi^Xvdep scems to reveal the nature of the corrui^tion, (i) For 
'qui' we should probably read 'quae', which indeed is found in some 
late Mss of no authority. (2) There is a lacuna somewhere in the sen- 
tence, probably after 'evangelii'. The original therefore would run in this 
form 'ut quae sunt ex me ad profectum veritatis [eveniant]...deservientes 
etc.', the participles belonging to a separate sentence of which the beginning 
is lost. The supplements 'perveniant', ' proficiant', found in some Jiss give 
the right sense, though perhaps they are conjectural. The Vulgate of Phil, 
i. 12 is 'quae circa me sunt magis ad profectum venerunt evangelii'. In the 
latter part of the verse it is impossible in many cases to say whether a 
MS intends 'operum quae' or 'operumque'; but the former is probably 
correct, as representing e'pyoov tQ>v r^s a-coTTjpias : unless indeed this sen- 
tence also is corrupt or mutilated. 

7 administrante etc.] Considering the diversity of readings here, we 
may perhaps venture on the emendation ' administratione spiritus sancti ', 
as this more closely resembles the passage on which our text is founded, 

Phil. i. 19 Stot TTjf VfjLcov SeJ/CTfcos Koi e7Ti)(^opriyias tov TVvevpaTOS k.t.\. 

12 retractu] 'wavering', 'hesitation'. For this sense of 'retractare', 
'to rehandle, discuss', and so 'to question, hesitate', and even 'to shirk', 
' decline', see Oehler Tertullian, index p. cxciii, Roensch N. T. Tertullians 
p. 669, Ducange Glossarium s. v.: comp. e.g. Iren.v. 11. i 'ne relinqueretur 
quaestio his qui iufideiiter retractant de eo'. So ' retractator' is equivalent 
to ' detractator ' in Tert. de Jejun. 15 ' retractatores hujus ofiBcii' (see 
Oehler's note) ; and in i Sam. xiv. 39 ' absque retractatione morietur ' is the 
rendering of ' dying he shall die', Bavara anoBavelrai. Here the expression 
probably represents xc<)pts'...5iaXoytcr/Ltfov of Phil. ii. 14, which in the Old Latin 
is 'sine...detractionibus'. All three forms occur, retractus (Tert. Scorp. i), 
retractatus (Tert. Apol. 4, adv. Marc. i. i, v. 3, adv. Pracc. 2, and frequently), 
retractatio (Cic. Tusc. v. 29, 'sine retractatione' and so frequently ; i Sam. 
1. c). Here ' retractus' must be preferred, both as being the least common 
form and as having the highest MS authority. In Tert. Scorp. i however 
it is not used in this same sense. 

13 quod est reliquum] I have already spoken of this passage, p. 286, and 
shall have to speak of it again, p. 291. The oldest and most trustworthy 
MSS have simply 'quod est'. The word 'reliquum' must be supplied, as 
Anger truly discerned (p. 163); for the passage is taken from Phil. iii. i to 
XoiTTov, a8e\(poi pov, xatpere iv Kvpiw. See the Vulgate translation of tu 
XoiTTou in I Cor. vii. 29, Later and less trustworthy authorities supply 
' optimum' or ' bonum'. 

14 in sensu Christi] 'in the mind of Christ' : for in i Cor. ii. 16 vo^v 
Xpia-Tov is rendered 'sensum Christi'. 

20 facite legi etc.] Tliough the words ' Colosensibus et' are wanting in 
very many of the authorities which are elsewhere most trustworthy, yet I 
have felt justified in retaining them with other respectable copies, because 
(i) The homoeoteleuton would account for their omission even in very an- 
cient mss; (2) The parallelism with Col. iv. 16 requires their insertion; 
(3) The insertion is not like the device of a Latin scribe, who would hardly 


have manipulated the sentence into a form which savours so strongly of a 
Greek original. 

It is the general, though not universal, opinion that this epistle was Theory of 
altogether a forgery of the Western Church^; and consequently that the a Greek 
Latin is not a translation from a lost Greek original, but preserves the ^PS^^^^ 


earhest form of the epistle. Though the forgery doubtless attained its 
widest circulation in the West, there are, I venture to think, strong reasons 
for dissenting from this opinion. 

If we read the epistle in its most authentic form, divested of the addi- Frequent 
tions contributed by the later mss, we are struck with its cramped style. Grecisma 
Altogether it has not the run of a Latin original. And, when we come to ^^.*^® 
examine it in detail, we find that this constraint is due very largely to the 
fetters imposed by close adherence to Greek idiom. Thus for instance we 
have ver. 5 ^ qui [or quae] sunt ex me\ ol [or to] e'l ifiov; operum qiiae 
salutis, epycou Tav ttjs a-coTrjpias ; ver. 6 palam vincula mea quae patior, 
(})avepo\ 01 Sf(r/io( fiov oiis virofievd) ; ver. 1 3 sordidos in lucro, ala-xpoKfpBfls; 
ver. 20 ei facile legi Colosensibus et Colosensium vobis, koX 7roij}o-are Iva toIs 
KoKaaaaeiiaiv avayvcoaOfj koi ^ Ko\a(Taaea)v Iva [koi] vp-lv. It is quite 
possible indeed that parallels for some of these anomalies may be found in 
Latin writers. Thus Tert. c. Marc. i. 23 ' redundantia justitiae super scri- 
barum, et Pharisaeorum ' is quoted to illustrate the genitive ' Colosensium ' 
ver. 20 2. The Greek cast however is not confined to one or two expressions 
but extends to the whole letter. 

But a yet stronger argument in favour of a Greek original remains. It differs 
This epistle, as we saw, is a cento of passages from St Paul If it had been widely 
written originally in Latin, we should expect to find that the passages were qi^t^t |? 
taken directly from the Latin versions. This however is not the case. Thus ^^^ y^j. 
compare ver. 6 ^ palam sunt vincula mea' with Phil. i. 13 'ut vincula mea gate Ver- 
manifesta fierent' : ver. 7 ' orationibus vestris et administrante spiritu sions. 
sancto' \admi nistratione spiritus sancti'?] with Phil. i. 19 ^per vestram 
obsecrationem (V. orationem) et subministrationem spiritus sancti'; ver. 9 
' ut eandem dilectionem habeatis et sitis unianimes ' with Phil. ii. 2 ' eau- 
dem caritatem habentes, unanimes'; ver. 10 ^ ergo, dilectissimi, ut audislis 
praesentia mei. ..facite in timore' with Phil. ii. 12 ^Propter quod (V. Itaque) 
dilectissimi mihi (V. charissimi mei) sicut semper obaudistis (V. obedis- 
iz's). ..praesentia (V. in praesentia) mei... cwm timore (V. metu). . .operamini' ; 
ver. II, 12 'Est enim Deus qui operatur in vos (v. 1. vobis). Et facite sine 
retractu quaecumque facitis' with Phil. ii. 13, i^Deus enim est qui operatur 
in vobis... Omnia autem facite sine ..detractionibus (V. haesitationibusY ; 
ver. 13 ^ quod est {reliquum'], dilectissimi, gaudete in Christo et praecavete' 
with Phil. iii. i, 2 ^ de caetero, fratres mei, gaudete in Domino..- Videte' ; ib. 
^sordidos in lucro' with the Latin renderings of ala-xpoKepbfis i Tim. iii. 8 
' turpilucros' (V. 'turpe lucrum sectantes'), alaxpoKepSfj Tit. i. 7 turpi- 

1 e.g. Anger Laodicenerbrief p. 142 rum quidem, qui testetur earn a se 
sq., Westcott Canon p. 454 sq. (ed. 4). lectam?' The accuracy of this state- 
Erasmus asks boldly, ' Qui factum est ment will be tested presently, 
ut baec epistola apud Latinos extet, ^ Anger p. i6^. 
cum nuUus sit apud Graecos, ne vete- 

COL. 19 



Thus in- 
a Greek 

to the 
same ef- 

rian Frag- 

lucrum (V, 'turpis lucri cupidum'); ver. 14 'sint petitiones vestrae 
palatn apud Deum ' with Phil. iv. 6 ' postulationes (V. petitiones) vestrae 
innotescant apud Deum'; ver. 20 'facite legi Colosensibus et Colosensium 
vobis' with Col. iv. 16 'facite ut et ia Laodicensium ecclesia legatur et earn 
quae Laodicensium, (mss Laodiciam) est ut (om. V.) vos legatis'. These 
examples tell their own tale. The occasional resemblances to the Latin 
Version are easily explained on the ground that reminiscences of this 
version would naturally occur to the translator of the epistle. The 
habitual divergences from it are only accounted for on the hypothesis that 
the original compiler was better acquainted with the New Testament in 
Greek than in Latin, and therefore presumably that he wrote in Greek. 

And, if we are led to this conclusion by an examination of the epistle 
itself, we shall find it confirmed by an appeal to external testimony. 
There is ample evidence that a spurious Epistle to the Laodiceans was 
known to Greek writers, as well as Latin, at a sufficiently early date. A 
mention of such an epistle occurs as early as the Muratorian Fragment on 
the Canon (about a.d. 170), where the writer speaks of two letters, one to 
the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, as circulated under the 
name of Paul^ The bearing of the words however is uncertain. He may 
be referring to the Marcionite recension of the canonical Epistle to the 
Ephesians, which was entitled by that heretic an epistle to the Laodiceans^. 
Or, if this explanation of his words be not correct (as perhaps it is not), 
still we should not feel justified in assuming that he is referring to the ex- 
tant apocryphal epistle. Indeed we should hardly expect that an epistle 
of this character would be written and circulated at so early a date. The 
reference in Col. iv. 16 ofi"ered a strong temptation to the forger, and proba- 

^ Canon Murat. p. 47 (ed. Tregelles). 
The passage stands in the ms, 'Fertur 
etiam ad Laudecenses alia ad Alexan- 
drines Pauli nomine fincte ad heresem 
Marcionis et alia plura quae in catho- 
licam eclesiam recepi non potest.' 
There is obviously some corruption in 
the text. One very simple emenda- 
tion is the repetition of 'alia', so that 
the words would run ' ad Laudicenses 
alia, alia ad Alexaudi'inos '. In this 
case fincte ( = finctae) might refer to 
the two epistles first mentioned, and 
the Latin would construe intelligibly. 
The wiitiug described as 'ad Laodi- 
censes alia' might then be the Epistle 
to the Ephesians under its Marcionite 
title, the wi-iter probably not having 
any personal knowledge of it, but sup- 
posing from its name that it was a dif- 
ferent and a forged writing. But what 
can then be the meaning of 'alia ad 
Alexandi'inos ' ? Is it, as some have 
thought, the Epistle to the Hebrews ? 
But this could not under any circum- 

stances be described as 'fincta ad hae- 
resem Marcionis ', even though we 
should strain the meaning of the 
preposition and interpret the words 
' against the heresy of Marcion'. And 
again our knowledge of Marcion's Ca- 
non is far too full to admit the hypo- 
thesis that it included a spurious Epi- 
stle to the Alexandrians, of which no 
notice is elsewhere preserved. We are 
therefore driven to the conclusion that 
there is a hiatus here, as in other 
places of this fi-agment, probably after 
' Pauli nomine ' ; and ' finctae ' will then 
refer not to the two epistles named 
before, but to the mutilated epistles 
of Marcion's Canon which he had 
'tampered with to adapt them to his 
heresy'. In this case the letter 'ad 
Laudicenses ' may refer to our apocry- 
phal epistle or to some earher for- 

^ See the Introduction to the Epi- 
stle to the Ephesians. 



bly more than one unscrupulous person was induced by it to try his hand at 

falsification ^ But, however this may be, it seems clear that before the close 

of the fourth century our epistle was largely circulated in the East and West 

alike. ' Certain persons ', writes Jerome in his account of St Paul, ' read Jerome. 

also an Epistle to the Laodiceans, but it is rejected by all 2'. No doubt is 

entertained that this father refers to our epistle. If then we find that Theodore. 

about the same time Theodore of Mopsuestia also mentions an Epistle to 

the Laodiceans, which he condemns as spurious^, it is a reasonable inference 

that the same writing is meant. In this he is followed by Theodoref; and Theodoret. 

mdeed the interpretations of Col. iv. 16 given by the Greek Fathers of this 

age were largely influenced, as we have seen, by the presence of the spurious 

epistle which they were anxious to discredit ^ Even two or three centuries 

later the epistle seems to have been read in the East. At the Second 2nd Coun- 

Council of Nicsea (a. d. 787) it was found necessary to warn people against ^^ of 

*a forged Epistle to the Laodiceans' which was ' circulated, having a place ^^^*^' 

in some copies of the Apostle^.' 

The Epistle to the Laodiceans then in the original Greek would run The Greek 
somewhat as follows^: restored. 


^TTAYAOZ AndcToAoc oyk in' ANGpobnooN oyAe h\' AN9pobnoY *Gal. i. i. 
aAAa Aia 'Ihcoy XpicTOY, TO?c AAeA(})o?c TO?c oyciN eN AaoAikgia. 
^^'XApic YMi^N KAi eipHNH And 06OY nATpdc KAi KYpi'oY 'Ihcoy "G.^^-.i- 3; 


Phil. L 2. 

1 Timotheus, who became Patriarch 
of Constantinople in 511, while still a 
presbyter includes in a list of apocry- 
phal works forged by the Manicheans ij 
IT evre Karr] [i.e. tov nai;\oi'] irpbs 
AaoSiKelsiTTiffToXri, Meiu*sep.ii7(quoted 
by Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T. i. 
p. 139). Anger (p. 27) suggests that 
there is a confusion of the Marcionites 
and Manicheans here. I am disposed 
to think that Timotheus recklessly 
credits the Manicheans with several 
forgeries of which they were innocent, 
among others with our apocryphal 
Epistle to the Laodiceans. Still it is 
possible that there was another Lao- 
dicean Epistle forged by these heretics 
to support -their pecuhar tenets. 

2 Vir. III. 5 (11. p. 840) 'Legunt qui- 
dam et ad Laodicenses, sed ab omni- 
bus exploditux'. 

3 The passage is quoted above, p. 
273, note I. 

* Tiv^s inriXa^ov Kal vpbs AaoSiKdas 
aiiTov -yiypaipivai.' avTiKa toIvvv kol 

irpo(X(f>ipovfft TreirXafffj.^u')]!' einaToXrjv. 

5 Anger (p. 143) argues agamst a 
Greek original on the ground that the 
Eastern Church, unlike the Latin, did 
not generally interpret Col. iv. 16 as 
meaning an epistle written to the Lao- 
diceans. The fact is true, but the in- 
ference is wrong, as the language of 
the Greek commentators themselves 

8 Act. vi. Tom. v (Labbe viii. p. 
1 125 ed. Colet.) Kal yap tov Oelov awo- 
arbXov Trpbs AaoSt/cetj (piperai vXacrTri 
iircffToXr} iv tktl ^i^Xois roO airoffroXou 
iyKei/j.evr], rjv 01 iraripes i]iMV aweooKl- 
fj.a<rav ws avrov aXXoTpiav. 

7 A Greek version is given in Ehas 
Hatter's Polyglott New Testament 
(Noreb. 1599): see Anger p. 147, note g. 
But I have retranslated the epistle 
anew, introducing the Pauline passages, 
of which it is almost entirely made up, 
as they stand in the Greek Testament. 
The references are given in the mar- 

19 — 2 


"Phil. i. 3. "''Eyx-^PIctcjo Tcp XpicTcp In hach AeHcei MOY, 5ti ecxe few aytco 

^ Gal. V. :;. / > ' « '" u . « fi , . , ' 

e^pet. ii. o; weNONTec KAi npocKApTepoYNT6c Toic epfoic AYTOY, AneKAexoMeNOi 

iii. 7; cf. THM enArreAiAN ®eic HMepAN Kpicecoc. 


^^■^™- ^y- +• Fna ^AHOCTpeYoociN YM<>^c And '^THC AAHGeiAc 'toy eYArreAi'oY toy 
Gal. ii. 5, 14. eYArreAicGKNTOc YTT eMO?. "ka'i nyn noiHcei 6 0edc Fna ^ta 65 

' GaL i. II >/^^ I „>,-> n 1 . t . , 

(cf. i. 8). ^'^*^^ ^'^ npOKOnHN THC AAHGeiAC toy CYArreAlOY ♦ • ♦ AATpeYONTCC 


'Phil. i. 13. AIOONIOY ZOOHC. *KAI NYN ^(|)ANepOI 01 A€CMOI MOY, ofc YHOMeNOO €N 

■° Matt. V. I2;v -» ^m' '"iv" 7'n"''' 

cf. Phil. i. l8. ■^PICTCO, eN OIC ™X<'*'P'J'^ KAI AfAAAlCOMAI. KAI °TOYTO eCTIN MO! 6IC 

" Phil. i. 19. cOOTHpiAN aTAION, KAI AHfeBH AlA THC YMCON AeHCeCOC Ka'i €niXOpH- 

"Phil. i. 20. ri'^^c HNeYMATOC AfiOY, "ei'xe AlA ZOOHC ehe Aia Ganatoy- ®^€moi r-^p 

TO ZHN In XpicTO) KAI TO ahoGangIn X'^'P''^* 'kai to ay'to noiHcei [kai] 

iPhil. ii. 2. eN YM?N AlA TOY eAeoYc AYTOY, Fna 'thn aythn Af^nHN Ixhtc, cym- 


^ 2 Thess. ii. 5 MOY, oy'tcoc ^MNHMONGYONTec MeTA (t)dBoY Kypioy eprAzecGe, ka) 
(see vulg.). „ . ., , , , > - utrk . , . . . - , 

'PhiL ii. 13. ecTAi YMiN zcoH eic TON AiooNA* ^Ucoc r<^p eCTIN O eNepfCON eN 

"J^,^;.."' ''*• YmTn. "kai "nOI6?T6 YOOpiC AIAAOPCMOON ^O Tl eAN noiHTe. 

■=001.111.17,23. ',,,,, , , , , . w ^ 

yPhil. iii. r. Kai ^to AoinoN, AfAnHTOi, X'^'ipcTe eN XpicTco. BAeneTe Ae 

Tit i^7^^ "^^^^ ^AicxpoKepAeTc. "^hanta ta aIthmata ymoon TNOipizecGo) npdc 
"Phil. iv. 6. rdN 0edN. kai ''eApAioi pNecGe eN ^'toj no'!" toy XpicTOY. ^''*^oca re 

<= I Cor. ii.* 16. '^AOKAnpA KAI AAhGH KAI CeMNA KAI AlKAIA KAI npOC(t)lAH, TAYTA 

•i Phil. iv. 8, 9. npAcceTC. ^"a kai hkoy'catg kai nApeAABere, eN th KApAiA KpATe?Te, 

KAI h eipHNH ecTAi mgG' Y'WOON. 
'Phil. iv. 22. ^^^'AcnAZONTAI yMS.C 01 AflOI. 

•■phil. iv. 23. lOi'y^ X'^P^C TOY KYpi'oY 'IhCOY XpiCTOY MGTA TOY nNGYMATOC 



KoAaccagcon Tna kai ymIn. 

Scanty cir- But, though written originally in Greek, it was not among Greek Christ- 
th ^e"'^"^ ians that this epistle attained its widest circulation. In the latter part of 
the 8th century indeed, when the Second Council of Nicsea met, it had found 
its way into some copies of St Paul's Epistles^. But the denunciation of 
this Council seems to have been effective in securing its ultimate exclusion. 
"We discover no traces of it in any extant Greek ms, with the very doubtful 
but -wide exception which has already been considered-'. But in the Latin Church 
diffusion the case was different. St Jerome, as we saw, had pronounced very de- 
cidedly against it. Yet even his authority was not suflScient to stamp it 

in the 

Quoted above, p. 291, note 6. - See above, p. 277 eq. 


out. At least as early as tlie sixth century it found a place in some copies 
of the Latin Bibles : and before the close of that century its genuineness was 
aflarmed by perhaps the most influential theologian whom the Latin Church 
produced during the eleven centuries which elapsed between the age of 
Jerome and Augiistine and the era of the Reformation. Gregory the Great Gregoiy 
did not indeed affirm its canonicity. He pronounced that the Church had *^® Great, 
restricted the canonical Epistles of St Paul to fourteen, and he found a 
mystical explanation of this limitation in the number itself, which was at- 
tained by adding the number of the Commandments to the number of the 
Gospels and thus fitly represented the teaching of the Apostle which com- 
bines the two^. But at the same time he states that the Apostle wrote 
fifteen ; and, though he does not mention the Epistle to the Laodiceans by 
name, there can be little doubt that he intended to include this as his 
fifteenth epistle, and that his words were rightly understood by subsequent 
writers as affirming its Pauline authorship. The influence of this great 
name is perceptible in the statements of later writers. Haymo of Halber- Haymo of 
stadt, who died a.d. 853, commenting on Col. iv. 16, says, The Apostle 'en- Halber- 
joins the Laodicean Epistle to be read to the Colossians, because though it ^''^'^''• 
is very short and is not reckoned in the Canon, yet still it has some use"'. 
And between two or three centuries later Hervey of Dole (c. a. d. 1 1 30), if it Hervey of 
be not Anselm of Laon^, commenting on this same passage, says: 'Although Dole, 
the Apostle wrote this epistle also as his fifteenth or sixteenth*, and it is 
established by Apostolic authority like the rest, yet holy Churcli does not 
reckon more than fourteen', and he proceeds to justify this limitation of 
the Canon with the arguments and in the language of Gregory^ Others 

^ Greg. Magn. Jfor. z?t loh. xxxv. ^ A third Epistle to the Corinthians 

§ 25 (ill. p. 433, ecL Gallicc.) 'Eecte being perhaps reckoned as the 15th; 

vita ecclesiae multiplicata per decern see Fabric. Cod. Apocr. Nov. Test. 11. 

et quattuor computatur; quia utrum- p. 866. 

que testamentum custodiens, et tam ^ Patrol. Lat. clxxxi. p. 1355 sq. 

secundum Legis decalogum quam se- (ed. Migne) 'et ea similiter epistola, 

cundum quattuor Evangelii libros vi- quae Laodicensium est, i.e. quam ego 

vens, usque ad perfectiouis culmen Laodicensibus misi, legatur vobis. 

extenditur. Unde et Paulus aposto- Quamvis et banc epistolam quintam- 

lus quamvis epistolas quindecim scrip- decimam vel sextamdecimam aposto- 

Berit, sancta tamen ecclesia non am- lus scripserit, et auctoritas earn apo- 

plius quam quatuordecim tenet, ut ex stoHca sicut caetera firmavit, sancta 

ipso epistolarum numero ostenderet tamen ecclesia non amplius quam qua- 

quod doctor egregius Legis et Evange- tuordecim tenet, ut ex ipso epistola- 

lii secreta rimasset '. rum numero ostenderet etc' At the 

" Patrol. Lat. cxvii. p. 765 (ed. end of the notes to the Colossians he 

Migne) 'Et earn quae erat Laodicen- adds, 'Hucusque protenditur epistola 

siiun ideo praecipit Colossensibus legi, quae missa est ad Colossenses. Con- 

quia, licet perparva sit et in Canone gruum autem videtur ut propter noti- 

non babeatur, aliquid tamen utilitatis tiam legentium subjiciamus earn quae 

habet'. He uses the expression 'earn est ad Laodicenses directa; quam, ut 

quae erat Laodicensium', because rrjj'e/c diximus, in usu non habet ecclesia. 

AaodiKeias was translated in the Latin Est ergo talis.' Then follows the text 

Bible 'earn quae Laodicensium est'. of the Laodicean Epistle, but it is not 

2 See Galatians p. 232 on the au- annotated, 
thorship of this commentary. 





John of 

The epis- 
tle repu- 
diated by 

however did not confine themselves to the qualified recognition given to the 
epistle by the great Bishop of Rome. Gregory had carefully distinguished 
between genuineness and canonicity ; but this important distinction was not 
seldom disregarded by later writers. In the EngUsh Church more especi- 
ally it was forgotten. Thus Aelft'ic abbot of Cerne, who wrote during the 
closing years of the tenth century, speaks as follows of St Paul : ' Fifteen 
epistles wrote this one Apostle to the nations by him converted unto the 
faith : which are large books in the Bible and make much for our amend- 
ment, if we foUow his doctrine that was teacher of the Gentiles'. He then 
gives a list of the Apostle's writings, which closes with ' one to Philemon 
and one to the Laodiceans; fifteen in aU as loud as thunder to faithful 
people^'. Again, nearly two centuries later John of SaMsbury, likewise 
writing on the Canon, reckons ' Fifteen epistles of Paul included in one 
volume, though it be the wide-spread and common opinion of nearly all that 
there are only fourteen ; ten to churches and four to individuals : supposing 
that the one addressed to the Hebrews is to be reckoned among the Epistles 
of Paul, as Jerome the doctor of doctors seems to lay down in his preface, 
where he refuteth the cavils of those who contended that it was not Paul's. 
But the fifteenth is that which is addressed to the Church of the Laodi- 
ceans ; and though, as Jerome saith, it be rejected by all, nevertheless was 
it written by the Apostle. Nor is this opinion assumed on the conjecture 
of others, but it is confirmed by the testimony of the Apostle himself: for 
he maketh mention of it in the Epistle to the Colossians in these words, 
When this epistle shall have been read among you, etc. (Col. iv. i6)^'. 
Aelfric and John are the typical theologians of the Church in this country 
in their respective ages. The Conquest effected a revolution in ecclesiasti- 
cal and theological matters. The Old English Chui-ch was separated from 
the Anglo-Norman Church in not a few points both of doctrine and of disci- 
pline. Yet here we find the representative men of learning in both agreed 
on this one point— the authorship and canonicity of the Epistle to the 
Laodiceans. From the language of John of Salisbury however it appears 
that such was not the common verdict at least in his age, and that on this 
point the instinct of the many was more soimd than the learning of the few. 
Nor indeed was it the undisputed opinion even of the learned in this coun- 
try during this interval. The first Norman Archbishop, Lanfranc, an Italian 
by birth and education, explains the passage in the Colossian Epistle as 
referring to a letter written by the Laodiceans to the Apostle, and adds that 
^ A Saxon Treatise concerning the Old nun dissolvens argutias qui eam Pauli 

and New Testament by ^Ifricus Abbas, 
p. 28 (ed. W. L'Isle, London 1623). 

2 loann. Sarisb. Epist. 143 (i. p. 210 
ed. Giles) 'Epistolae Pauli quindecim 
uno volumine comprehensae, lioet sit 
vulgata et fere omnium communis 
opinio non esse nisi quatuordecim, 
decern ad ecclesias, quatuor ad perso- 
nas; si tamen ilia quae ad Hebraeos 
est counumerauda est epistolis Pauli, 
quod iu praefatione ejus astruere vide- 
tur doctorum doctor Hieronymus, illo- 

non esse contendebant. Caeterum 
quintadecima est ilia quae ecclesiae 
Laodicensium scribitur ; et licet, ut ait 
Hieronymus, ab omnibus explodatm-, 
tamen ab apostolo scripta est: neque 
sententia haec de aliorum praesumitur 
opinione sed ipsius apostoli testimonio 
roboratur. Meminit enim ipsius in 
epistola ad Colossenses his verbis, 
Quum lecta fuerit apud vos haec epi- 
stola, etc.^ 


otherwise 'there would be more than thirteen Epistles of Paul^'. Thus 
he tacitly ignores the Epistle to the Laodiceans, with which he can hardly 
have been unacquainted. 

Indeed the safest criterion of the extent to which this opinion prevailed, Occur- 
is to be found in the manuscripts. At all ages from the sixth to the rence in 
fifteenth century we have examples of its occurrence among the Pauline ^^^ j 
Epistles and most frequently without any marks which imply doubt respect- countries. 
ing its canonicity. These instances are more common in proportion to 
the number of extant mss in the earlier epoch than in the later ^. In one 
of the three or four extant authorities for the Old Latin Version of the 
Pauline Epistles it has a place". In one of the two most ancient copies of 
Jerome's revised Vulgate it is found*. Among the first class mss of 
this latter version its insertion is almost as common as its omission. This 
phenomenon moreover is not confined to any one country. Italy, Spain, 
France, Ireland, England, Germany, Switzerland — all the great nations of 
Latin Christendom — contribute examples of early manuscripts in which 
this epistle has a placed 

And, when the Scriptures came to be translated into the vernacular Versions, 
languages of modern Europe, this epistle was not uncommonly included. Albigen- 
Thus we meet with an Albigensian version, which is said to belong to the ^i^^- 
thirteenth century*. Thus too it is found in the Bohemian language, both Bohemian, 
in manuscript and in the early printed Bibles, in various recensions'^. 
And again an old German translation is extant, which, judging from lin- German, 
guistic pecuMarities, cannot be assigned to a later date than about the 
fourteenth century, and was printed in not less than fourteen editions of 
the German Bible at the close of the fifteenth and the beginning of the 
sixteenth centuries, before Luther's version appeared**. In the early Eng- Ejiglish, 
lish Bibles too it has a place. Though it was excluded by both Wycliffe and 
Purvey, yet it did not long remain untranslated and appears in two 
diflerent and quite independent versions, in mss written before the middle 
of the fifteenth century^. The prologue prefixed to the commoner of the 
two forms runs as follows : 

1 Patrol. Lat. cl. p. 331 (ed. Migne) written within a few years of the Co- 
on Col. iv. 16 'Haec si esset apostoli, dex Amiatinus. 

ad Laodicenses diceret, non Laodieen- 6 The list of mss given above, p, 280 

xium; et plusquam tredecim essent sq., will substantiate this statement, 
epistolae Pauli'. We should perhaps « An account of this ms, which is at 

read xiiii for siii, ' quatuordecim ' for Lyons, is given by Keuss in the Revue 

'tredecim', as Lanfranc is not likely de TMologie v. p. 334 (Strassb, 1852). 

to have questioned the Pauline author- He ascribes the translation of the New 

ship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Testament to the r3th century, and 

2 The proportion however is very dates the ms a little later. 

different in diJfferent collections. In the ' This version is printed by Anger, 

Cambridge University Library I found p. 170 sq. 

the epistle in four only out of some 8 gee Anger, p. 149 sq., p. 166 sq. 
thirty mss which I inspected ; whereas . " These two versions are printed in 

in the Lambeth Library the proportion Lewis's New Testament translated by 

was far greater, J. Wiclif (i 73 r ) p. 99 sq., and in ForshaU 

3 The Speculum of Mai, see above, and Madden's Wycliffite Versions of 
p. 280. the Holy Bible (1850) iv. p. 438 sq, 

•* The Codex Fuldensis, which was They are also given by Anger p. 168 sq. 




Two Ver- 
sions of 
the epis- 

' Laodicensis ben also Colocenses, as tweye towties and 00 peple in 
maners. These ben of Asie, and among hem hadden be false apostlis, 
and disceyuede manye. Therfore the postle bringith hem to mynde of 
his conuersacion and trewe preehing of the gospel, and excitith hem to be 
stidfast in the trewe witt and loue of Crist, and to be of 00 wil. But this 
pistU is not in comyn Latyn bookis, and therfor it was but late translatid 
into Englisch tungeV 

The two forms of the epistle in its English dress are as follows". The 
version on the left hand is extant only in a single lis ; the other, which oc- 
cupies the right column, is comparatively common. 

' Poul, apostle, not of men, ne 
bi man, but bi Jhesu Crist, to 
the britheren that ben of Lao- 
dice, grace to 30U, and pees of 
God the fadir, and of the Lord 
Jhesu Crist. Gracis I do to Crist 
bi al myn orisoun, that 30 be 
dwellinge in him and lastinge, bi 
the biheest abidinge in the dai 
of doom. Ne he vnordeynede vs 
of sum veyn speche feynynge, 
that vs ouerturne fro the sothfast- 
nesse of the gospel that of me 
is prechid. Also now schal God 
do hem leuynge, and doynge of 
blessdnesse of werkis, which heelthe 
of lyf is. And now openli ben 
my boondis, whiche I suffre in 
Crist Jhesu, in whiche I glad 
and ioie. And that is to me 
heelthe euerlastynge, that that I 
dide with oure preieris, and my- 
nystringe the Holy Spirit, bi lijf 

(1843), who takes the rarer form from 
Lewis and the other from a Dresden 
MS. Dr Westcott also has printed the 
commoner version in his Canon, p. 457 
(ed. 4), fiom Forshall and Madden. 

Of one of these two versions For- 
shall and Madden give a collation 
of several mss ; the other is taken from 
a single ms (i. p. xxxii). Lewis does 
not state whence he derived the rarer 
of these two versions, but there can be 
little doubt that it came from the same 
MsPe^y^. 2073 (belonging to Magd.CoU. 
Cambridge) from which it was taken by 
Forshall and Madden (i. p. Ivii); since 
he elsewhere mentions using this ms 
(p. 104). The version is not known to 

' Poul,apostle,not of men,ne by man, 
but bi Jhesu Crist, to the britheren 
that ben at Laodice, grace to 30U, and 
pees of God the fadir, and of the 
Lord Jhesu Crist. I do thankyngis 
to my God bi al my preier, that 30 be 
dwelling and lastyng in him, abiding 
the biheest in the day of doom. For 
neithir the veyn spekyng of summe 
vnwise men hath lettide 30U, the 
whiche wolden turne 30U fro the 
treuthe of the gospel, that is prechid 
of me. And now hem that ben of 
me, to the profi3t of truthe of the 
gospel, God schal make disseruyng, 
and doyng beuygnyte of werkis, and 
helthe of euerlasting hjf. And now 
my boondis ben open, which Y suffre 
in Crist Jhesu, in whiche Y glade and 
ioie. And that is to me to euerlast- 
yng helthe, that this same thing be 
doon by 30ure preiers, and mynys- 
tryng of the Holi Goost, either bi 

exist in any other. Forshall and Mad- 
den given the date of the ms as about 

1 From Forshall and Madden, rv. p. 
438. The earliest mss which contain 
the common version of the Laodicean 
Epistle (to which this prologue is pre- 
fixed) date about a.d. 1430, 

2 Printed from Forshall and Madden 
I.e. I am assured by those who ai-e 
thoroughly conversant with old Eng- 
hsb, that they can discern no differ- 
ence of date in these two versions, 
and that they both belong probably to 
the early years of the 15th century. 
The rarer version is taken from a bet- 
ter Latin text than the other. 



or bi deetli. It is forsothe to me 
lijf into Crist, and to die ioie 
withouten eende. In vs he sclial 
do his merci, that 30 haue the 
same louynge, and that 36 be of 
o wil. Therfoi-e, derlyngis, as 30 
han herd in presence of me, 
liold 36, and do 3e in drede of 
God; and it schal be to 30U lijf 
withouten eend. It is forsothe 
God that worchith in vs. And do 
36 withouten ony withdrawiuge, 
what soeuere 30 doon. And that 
it is, derlyngis, ioie 36 in Crist, 
and flee 36 niaad foul in clay. 
AUe 3oure axingis ben open anentis 
God, and be 36 fastned in the 
witt of Crist. And whiche been 
hool, and sooth, and chast, and 
rightwijs, and louable, do 30; and 
whiche herden and take in herte, 
hold 36; and it schal be to 30U 
pees. Holi men greeten 3011 weel, 
in the grace of oure Lord Jhesu 
Crist, with the Holi Goost. And 
do 30 that pistil of Colosensis to 
be red to 30U. Amen. 

lijf, either bi deeth. Forsothe to me 
it is lijf to lyue in Crist, and to die 
ioie. And his mercy schal do in 30U 
the same thing, that 30 moun haue 
the same loue, and that 36 be of 00 
will. Therfore, 36 weel biloued 
britheren, holde 30, and do 30 in the 
dreede of God, as 36 han herde 
the presence of me; and lijf schal 
be to 30U withouten eende. Sotheli 
it is God that worchith in 30U. And, 
my weel biloued britheren, do 30 
without eny withdrawyng what euer 
thingis 36 don, Joie 30 in Crist, and 
eschewe 30 men defoulid in lucre, 
either foul wynnyng. Be alle 30ure 
askyngis open anentis God, and be 
36 stidefast in the witt of Crist. And 
do 36 tho thingis that ben hool, and 
trewe, and chaast, and iust, and able 
to be loued ; and kepe 30 in herte 
tho thingis that 30 haue herd and 
take ; and pees schal be to 30U. Alle 
holi men greten 30U weel. The grace 
of oure Lord Jhesu Crist be with 
30ure spirit. And do 30 tliat pistil 
of Colocensis to be red to 30U. 

Thus for more than nine centuries this forged epistle hovered about 
the doors of the sacred Canon, without either finding admission or being 
peremptorily excluded. At length the revival of learning dealt its death- 
blow to this as to so many other spurious pretensions. As a rule, Roman 
Catholics and Keformers were eqvially strong in their condemnation of its 
worthlessness. The language of Erasmus more especially is worth quoting 
for its own sake, and must not be diluted by translation : 

'Nihil habet Pauli praeter voculas aliquot ex caeteris ejus epistolis 

mendicatas Non est cujusvis hominis Pauliuum pectus effingere. Tonat, 

fulgurat, meras flannnas loquitur Paulus. At haec, praeterquam quod brevis- 
sima est, quam friget, quam jacet !...Quanquam quid attinet argumentari? 

Legat, qui volet, epistolam Nullum argumentura eflScacius persuaserit 

eam non esse Pauli quam ipsa epistola. Et si quid mihi naris est, ejus- 
dem est opificis qui naeniis suis omnium veteruni theologorum omnia 
scripta contaminavit, conspurcavit, perdidit, ac praecipue ejus qui prae 
caeteris indignus erat ea contumelia, nempe D. Hieronymi^' 

Kevival of 
and con- 
of the 

of Eras- 

1 On Col. iv. 16. Erasmus is too 
hard upon the writer of this letter, 
when he charges him with such a mass 
of forgeries. He does not explain how 

this hypothesis is consistent with the 
condemnation of the Epistle to the La- 
odiceans in Hieron. Vir. III. 5 (quoted 
above p. 291). 


Excep- But some eccentric spirits on both sides were still found to maintain its 

tions. genuineness. Thus on the one hand the Lutheran Steph. Prsetorius prefaces 

his edition of this epistle (a.d. 1595) with the statement that he 'restores 

Prffitorius. it to the Christian Church 'j he gives his opinion that it was written 'either 
by the Apostle himself or by some other Apostolic man': he declares 
that to himself it is ' redolent of the spirit and grace of the most divine 
Paul'; and he recommends younger teachers of the Gospel to 'try their 
strength in explaining it', that thus ' accustoming themselves gradually 
to the Apostolic doctrine they may extract thence a flavour sweeter than 

Stapleton. ambrosia and nectar ^' On the other hand the Jesuit Stapleton was 
not less eager in his advocacy of this miserable cento. To him its genuine- 
ness had a controversial value. Along with several other apocryphal 
vrritings which he accepted in like manner, it was important in his eyes 
as showing that the Church had authority to exclude even Apostolic 
writings from the Canon, if she judged fit^. But such phenomena were 
quite abnormal. The dawn of the Reformation epoch had effectually 
scared away this ghost of a Pauline epistle, which (we may confidently 
hope) has been laid for ever and will not again be suffered to haunt the 
mind of the Church. 

^ Pauli Apostoli ad Laodicenses works that proceed of faith. 
Epistola, Latine et Germanice, Ham- * See Bp. Davenant on Col. iv. 16: 
bui'g. 1595, of which the preface is 'Detestanda Stapletonis opLnio, qui 
given in Fabricius Cod. Apocr, Nov. ipsius Pauli epistolam esse statuit, 
Test. II. p. 867. It is curious that quam omnes patres ut adulteriuam et 
the only two arguments against its insulsam repudiarunt ; nee sanior con- 
genuineness which he thinks worthy clusio, quam inde dedueere voluit, 
of notice are (i) Its brevity; which he posse nimirum ecclesiam geriuanam 
answers by appealing to the Epistle to et veram apostoli Pauli epistolam 
PhUemon; and (2) Its recommenda- pro sua authoritate e Canone exclu- 
tion of works ('quod scripsit opera dere'. So also '^Tiitaker Disputation 
esse facienda quae sunt salutis aeter- oti Scripture passim (see the references 
uae'); which he explains to refer to given above, p. 273, note 3). 



THE Epistle to Philemon holds a unique place among the Unique 
rt Vj Q T" Q /I + gy 
Apostle's writings. It is the only strictly private letter of the 

which has been preserved. The Pastoral Epistles indeed are ^P^^^^^^- 

addressed to individuals, but they discuss important matters 

of Church discipline and government. Evidently they were 

intended to be read by others besides those to whom they 

are immediately addressed. On the other hand the letter 

before us does not once touch upon any question of public 

interest. It is addressed apparently to a layman. It is wholly 

occupied with an incident of domestic life. The occasion 

which called it forth was altogether common-place. It is 

only one sample of numberless letters which must have been 

written to his many friends and disciples by one of St Paul's 

eager temperament and warm afifections, in the course of a 

long and chequered life. Yet to ourselves this fragment, which 

has been rescued, we know not how, from the wreck of a large Its value. 

and varied correspondence, is infinitely precious. Nowhere is 

the social influence of the Gospel more strikingly exerted ; 

nowhere does the nobility of the Apostle's character receive 

a more vivid illustration than in this accidental pleading on 

behalf of a runaway slave. 

The letter introduces us to an ordinary household in a The 
small town in Phrygia. Four members of it are mentioned addb-essed. 
by name, the father, the mother, the son, and the slave. 

I. The head of the family bears a name which, for good or i. Phile- 
for evil, was not unknown in connexion with Phrygian story. 


Occur- The legend of Philemon and Baucis, the aged peasants who 
the name entertained not angels but gods unawares, and were rewarded 
ria ^y their divine guests for their homely hospitality and their 

conjugal love *, is one of the most attractive in Greek mytho- 
logy, and contrasts favourably with many a revolting tale in 
which the powers of Olympus are represented as visiting this 
lower earth. It has a special interest too for the Apostolic 
history, because it suggests an explanation of the scene at 
Lystra, when the bai-barians would have sacrificed to the 
Apostles, imagining that the same two gods, Zeus and Hermes, 
had once again deigned to visit, in the likeness of men, those 
regions which they had graced of old by their presence ^ Again, 
in historical times we read of one Philemon who obtained an 
unenviable notoriety at Athens by assuming the rights of 
Athenian citizenship, though a Phrygian and apparently a 
slave ^ Otherwise the name is not distinctively Phrygian. It 
does not occur with any special frequency in the inscriptions 
belonging to this country ; and though several persons bearing 
this name rose to eminence in literary history, not one, so far 
as we know, was a Phrygian. 
This Phi- The Philemon with whom we are concerned was a native, 
Colossian or at least an inhabitant, of Colossse. This appears from the 
fact that his slave is mentioned as belonging to that place. It 
may be added also, in confirmation of this view, that in one of 
two epistles written and despatched at the same time St Paul 

1 Ovid. 3Iet. vii. 626 sq. 'Jupiter bant'. The familiarity with this 

hue, specie mortali, cumque parente beautiful story may have suggested to 

Venit Atlantiades positis caducifer aJis' the barbarians of Lystra, whose ' Ly- 

etc. caonian speech' was not improbably 

^ Acts xiv. II ol Oeol ofxoiwOivres a dialect of Phrygian, that the same 

dvOpdiirois KaTf^rjaav wpdi -n/j-as k.t.\. two gods, Zeus and Hermes, had again 

There are two points worth observing visited this region on an errand at 

in the Phrygian legend, as illustratiag once of beneficence and of vengeance, 

the Apostolic history, (i) It is a whUe at the same time it would prompt 

miracle, which opens the eyes of the them to conciliate the deities by a 

peasant couple to the divinity of their similar mode of propitiation, i^deXou 

guests thus disgiiised; (2) The im- Oveiv. 

mediate effect of this miracle is their ^ Aiistoph. Av. ']6i d 5^ rvyxO'Vei, 

attempt to sacrifice to their divine ns iv ^p^^...(ppvyl\os 6pvis iv6d5' ^arai, 

visitors, ' dis hospitibus mactare para- tov ^iXtj/j-ovos yivovs. 


announces the restoration of Onesimus to his master, while in 
the other he speaks of this same person as revisiting Colossse \ 
On the other hand it would not be safe to lay any stress on 
the statement of Theodoret that Philemon's house was still 
standing at Colossse when he wrote "'', for traditions of this kind 
have seldom any historical worth. 

Philemon had been converted by St Paul himself^. At converted 
what time or under what circumstances he received his first Paui. 
lessons in the Gospel, we do not know : but the Apostle's long 
residence at Ephesus naturally suggests itself as the period 
when he was most likely to have become acquainted with a 
citizen of Colossse*. 

Philemon proved not unworthy of his spiritual parentage. His evan- 
Though to Epaphras belongs the chief glory of preaching the zeal, 
Gospel at Colossse^, his labours were well seconded by Phi- 
lemon. The title of ' fellow-labourer,' conferred upon him by 
the Apostle ®, is a noble testimony to his evangelical zeal. Like 
Nymphas in the neighbouring Church of Laodicea', Philemon 
had placed his house at the disposal of the Christians at Colossse 
for their religious and social gatherings ^ Like Gains", to 
whom the only other private letter in the Apostolic Canon is 
addressed ^°, he was generous in his hospitalities. All those and wide 
with whom he came in contact spoke with gratitude of his uty. 

^ Compare Col. iv. 9 vdih Philem. designates Philemon's own family (in- 

1 1 sq. ^ eluding his slaves) by this honourable 

^. Theodoret in his preface to the title of eKKXrjffla, in order to interest 

epistle says ttoXlv di elxe [6 ^iX-^^/xuiv] them in his petition. This is plainly 

rds KoXdo-cras- Kal ij oMa 5i aurov wrong. See the note on Col. iv. 15. 

fj.^XP'- "''"^ vapovTos fiefievijKe. This is ^3 Joh. 5 sq. 

generally taken to mean that Phile- ^^ I take the view that the Kvpla 

mon's house was still standing, when addressed in the Second Epistle of St 

Theodoret wrote. This may be the John is some church personified, as 

coiTect interpretation, but the language indeed the whole tenour of the epistle 

is not quite explicit. seems to imply : see esp. w. 4, 7 sq. 

3 ver. 1 9. The salutation to the ' elect lady ' 

* See above, p. 30 sq. (ver. i) from her 'elect sister' (ver. 

5 See above, p. 31 sq. 15) will then be a gi-eeting sent to 

6 ver. I ffwepyip tj/hQiv. one church from another ; just as in 

7 Col. iv. 15. I Peter the letter is addressed at the 

8 ver. 2 T^ Kar' oIkov (tov iKKXrjcriq.. outset e/cXe/frois TL6ptov k.t.X. (i. i) and 
The Greek commentators, Chrysostom contains at the close a salutation from 
and Theodoret, suppose that St Paul ij iv Ba^uXwvi aweKXeKT-fj (v. 13). 


Legendary kindly attentions \ Of his subsequent career we have no cer- 

iiiai'tyr- . , , , ._ 

dom. tain knowledge. Legendary story indeed promotes him to the 

bishopric of Colossse *, and records how he was martyred in his 
native city under Nero ^ But this tradition or fiction is not 
entitled to any credit. All that we really know of Philemon is 
contained within this epistle itself. 
2. Apphia 2. It is a safe inference from the connexion of the names 
that Apphia was the wife of Philemon*. The commentators 
assume without misgiving that we have here the familiar 
Roman name Appia, though they do not explain the intrusion 
A strictly of the aspirate '. This seems to be a mistake. The word occurs 
name. very frequently on Phrygian inscriptions as a proper name, and 
is doubtless of native origin. At Aphrodisias and Philadelphia, 
at Eumenia and Apamea Cibotus, at Stratonicea, at Philo- 
melium, at -^zani and Cotiseum and Dorylgeum, at almost all 
the towns far and near, which were either Phrygian or subject 
to Phrygian influences, and in which any fair number of inscrip- 
tions has been preserved, the name is found. If no example 
has been discovered at Colossse itself, we must remember that 
not a single proper name has been preserved on any monu- 
mental inscription at this place. It is generally written either 
Apphia or Aphphia®; more rarely Aphia, which is pei'haps 

^ w. 5, 7. Like other direct statements of this 

* Apost. Const, vii. 46 ttjj 5^ iv same writer, as for instance that the 
^pvylg. AaoSiK€las[eTricrKOTroi\"Apx^''''^°^' Colossians sent a deputation to St 
KoXaffffa^uv 8i i'lX-^ij.ijjv, Bepolas Si ttjs Paul (UAntechrist p. 90), this asser- 
Kara MciKedoviav 'Ov-^aifioi 6 ^iXififiovos. tion rests on no authority. 

The Greek Mcnaea however make Phi- * They speak of 'Aw<pia as a softened 

lemon bishop of Gaza; see Tillemont form of the Latin Appia, and quote 

I. p. 574, note Ixvi. Acts xxviii. 15, where however the form 

" See Tillemont i. pp. 290, 574, for is 'AttttIov. Even Ewald writes the 

the references. word Appia. 

* Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3814 Net'/c- " 'Aircpla, no. 2782, 2835, 2950, 
avSpos Kal 'A(p(f>la yvvr] aiiToO. In the 3432," 3446, 2775 b, c, d, 2837 ^} 3902 
following inscriptions also a wife bear- m, 3962, 4124, 4145 : ^A<p<pia, no. 3814, 
ing the name Apphia (Aphphia, Aphia) 4141, 4277, 4321 f, 3827 1, 3846 z, 
or Apphion (Aphphion, Aphion) is 3846 z^^. So far as I could trace any 
mentioned in connexion with her bus- law, the form 'A(p<pia is preferred in 
band; 2720, 2782, 2836, 3446, 2775 the northern and more distant towns 
b, c, d, 2837 b, 3849, 3902 m, 3962, like ^zani and Cotia3um, while 'A-rrcpla 
4141, 4277, 4321 f, 3846 zi7, etc. prevails in the southern towns in the 

M. Eenan (Saint Paul p. 360) says more immediate neighbom-hood of 
•Appia, diaconesse de cette ville.' Colossse, such as Aphrodisias. This 



due merely to the carelessness of the stonecutters '. But, so far its affini- 
as I have observed, it always preserves the aspirate. Its dimi- 
nutive is Apphion or Aphphion or Aphion *. The allied form 
Aphphias or Aphias, also a woman's name, is found, though 
less commonly'; and we likewise frequently meet with the 
shorter form Apphe or Aphphe *. The man's name correspond- 
ing to Apphia is Apphianos, but this is rare ^ The root would 
apjDear to be some Phrygian term of endearment or relation- 
ship ®. It occurs commonly in connexion with other Phrygian and ana- 
names of a like stamp, more especially Ammia, which under- ^^^^^' 
goes the same modifications of form, Amia, Ammias, Ammion 
or Amion, Ammiane or Ammiana, with the corresponding 
masculine Ammianos^ With these we may also compare 

accords with the evidence of our mss, 
in which 'Av(p[a is the best supported 
form, though 'A^cpLa is found in some. 
In Theod. Mops. (Cramer's Cat. p. 105) 
it becomes 'A/M0la by a common cor- 
ruption ; and Old Latin copies write 
the dative Apphiadi from the aUied 
form Apphias. 

The most interesting of these in- 
scriptions mentioning tlie name is no. 
2782 at Aphrodisias, where there is a 
notice of <i>X. ^Air<pias apxi-^p^i-o-^ 'Acrias, 
lx7)Tphs Kal ddeXcpris Kcd /*d,a/iTjs cruj'/cXi;- 
tikQ)v, (pCKoTr6iT pibos k.t.X. 

1 no. 2720, 3827. 

- "AircpLOV or "A<p<pLOu 2733, 2836, 
3295, 3849, 3902 m, 4207; 'A(j>iov, 
3846 z^* and"A0etoj' 3846 z'"; and even 
'Aircpeiv and "Acpcpetv, 3167, 3278. In 
3902 m the mother's name is 'Aircpia 
and the daughter's 'Air4>iov. 

' 'A(p(p(as 3697, 3983 ; 'Afplas 3879. 

* 'A(p<p7) 3816, 3390, 4143 ; 'Att^t; 
3796, 4122. 

^ It is met with at the neighbouring 
town of Hierapolis, in the form.'ATr- 
(piavos no. 391 1. It also occurs on 
coins of not very distant parts of Asia 
Minor, being written either 'Air<plavoi 
or 'A(p<piai/os; Mionnet iii. p. 179, 184, 
IV. p. 65, 67, Suppl. VI. p. 293, VII. 

P- 365-. 

^ Suidas 'ATT^a* dSeX^^s Kal dSeX- 
(pov inroKdpKTfxa, and so Bekk. Anecd. 
p. 441. Eustath. II. p. 565 says dir<pav 


Trjv a5e\(f>7)V 'Arn/ccDs p-dnrj t] dSeXrpy 
eiiroL dv, Kcd Trdinrav rbv iraripa fj.6vos 
6 TTois K.T.X., and he adds Icrr^ov 5i Stl 
€K ToO ws eppidy) dir(f)a. ylverai Kal t6 
aTTipiov, VTroKdpia/iia op ipwpi,ivris' rtf^j 
5^ Kal rb dircpa vwoKOpLdixd (paaw 'Attl- 
Kov. These words were found in writers 
of Attic comedy (Pollux iii. 74 17 irapd 
Tois vioii Kij/jiqidois d7r<pla Kal dircjilov 
Kal dTr(pdpLov ; comp. Xenarchus rods 
Hev yipovTas 6vTas iTriKaXo^/xevat varpl- 
Sta, rods 6' dTr(pdpia, TOi/s veoiripovs, 
Meineke Fragm. Com. iii. p. 617) : 
and doubtless they were heard com- 
monly in Attic homes. But were they 
not learnt in the nursery from Phry- 
gian slaves ? ^AircpdpLov appears in two 
inscriptions almost as a proper name, 
2637 WXav5ia dwipdpiov, ^2'j'j dTr(pdpi.Qv 
AoXXiavT). In no. 4207 (at Telmissus) 
we have ''EtXivi) ij Kal 'AcpcpLov, so that 
it seems sometimes to have been em- 
ployed side by side with a Greek name ; 
comp. no. 3912a Mairlas . . .0 KaXovpuvoi 
Aioyev-qs, quoted above, p. 48. This 
wiU account for the frequency of the 
names, Apphia, Apphion, etc. In 
Theocr. xv. 13 we have dTr4>vs, and in 
Callim. Hym. Dian. 6 dmra, as a term 
of endearment apphed to a father. 

7 This appears from the fact that 
Ammias and Ammianos appear some- 
times as the names of mother and son 
respectively in the same inscrii^tions ; 
e. g. 3846 z82, 3847 k, 3882 i. 




Not to be 
with the 

Her share 
in the 

3. Aiehip- 
pus, the 

Tatia, Tatias, Tation, Tatiane or Tatiana, Tatianos. Similar 
too is the name Papias or Pappias, with the lengthened form 
Papianos, to which corresponds the feminine Papiane\ So 
again we have Nannas or Nanas, Nanna or Nana, with their 
derivatives, in these Phrygian inscriptions ^ There is a tend- 
ency in some of the allied forms of Apphia or Aphphia to drop 
the aspirate so that they are written with a pp, more especially 
in Appe', but not in the word itself; nor have I observed con- 
versely any disposition to write the Roman name Appia with an 
aspu-ate, Apphia or Aphphia *. Even if such a disposition could 
be proved, the main point for which I am contending can 
hardly be questioned. With the overwhelming evidence of the 
inscriptions before us, it is impossible to doubt that Apphia is 
a native Phrygian name^ 

Of this Phrygian matron we know nothing more than can 
be learnt from this epistle. The tradition or fiction which 
represents her as martyred together with her husband may be 
safely disregarded. St Paul addresses her as a Christian ^ 
Equally with her husband she had been aggrieved by the mis- 
conduct of their slave Onesimus, and equally with him she 
might interest herself in the penitent's future well-being. 

3. With less coafideuce, but still w-ith a reasonable degree 
of probability, we may infer that Archippus, who is likewise 
mentioned in the opening salutation, was a son' of Philemon 

'^ On the name Papias or Pappias 
see above, p. 48. 

2 See Boeckh Corp. Inscr. iii. p. 
1085 for the names Naj'as, etc. 

* We have not only the form 'Ainrr) 
several times (e.g. 3827 x, 3846 p, 
3846 X, 3846 z**, etc.); but also 'A7r7ri7s 
3827 g. 3846 n, 3846 2?'', still as a 
woman's name. These all occur in 
the sarae neighbourhood, at Cotiaeum 
and .^zani. I have not noticed any 
instance of this phenomenon in the 
names Apphia, Apphion ; though pro- 
bably, where Eoman influences were 
especially strong, there would be a 
tendency to transform a Phrygian name 
into a Koman, e. g. Apphia into Appia, 
and Apphianus into Appianus. 

* In the Greek historians of Rome 
for instance the personal name is al- 
ways 'Attttios and the road 'Ainrla ; so 
too in Acts xxviii. 15 it is 'Atttt/ou 

8 The point to be observed is that 
examples of these names are thickest 
in the heart of Phrygia, that they di- 
minisTi in frequency as Phrygian in- 
fluence becomes weaker, and that they 
almost, though not entirely, disappear 
in other parts of the Greek and Boman 

^ ver. 2 T^ a.8e\<py. See the note. 

7 So Theodore of Mopsuestia. But 
Chrysostom irepov nva fcrws <f>l\ov, and 
Theodoret 6 5^ ''Apx"'''''os Tr)v di5acrKa- 
Xiav avrdv eTreiriaTevTO. 


and Apphia. The inscriptions do not exhibit the name in 
any such frequency, either in Phrygia or in the surrounding dis- 
tricts, as to suggest that it was characteristic of these parts \ 
Our Archippus held some important office in the Church ^ ; His office 
but what this was, we are not told. St Paul speaks of it as 
a ' ministry ' {SiaKovta). Some have interpreted the term tech- 
nically as signifying the diaconate ; but St Paul's emphatic 
message seems to imply a more important position than this. 
Others again suppose that he succeeded Epaphras as bishop of 
ColosssB, when Epaphras left his native city to join the Apostle 
at Rome^; but the assumption of a regular and continuous 
episcopate in such a place as Colossse at this date seems to 
involve an anachronism. More probable than either is the 
hypothesis which makes him a presbyter. Or perhaps he held 
a missionary charge, and belonged to the order of ' evangelists V 
Another question too arises respecting Archippus. Where 
was he exercising this ministry, whatever it may have been ? 
At Colossse, or at Laodicea ? His connexion with Philemon and abode, 
would suggest the former place. But in the Epistle to the 
Colossians his name is mentioned immediately after the salu- 
tation to the Laodiceans and the directions affecting that 
Church ; and this fact seems to connect him with Laodicea. Laodicea, 
On the whole this appears to be the more probable solution ®. tharf'^ 
Laodicea was within walking distance of Colossse ^ Archippus ^^o^o^*^** 
must have been in constant communication with his parents, 
who lived there ; and it was therefore quite natural that, 
writing to the father and mother, St Paul should mention the 
son's name also in the opening address, though he was not on 
the spot. An early tradition, if it be not a critical inference 

1 It occurs in two Smymsan in- Mopsuestia. On the other hand Theo- 

scriptions, no. 3143, 3224. doret argues against this view on 

^ Col. iv. 27 jSX^TTf TTjc haKOviav -qv critical grounds; Tivh Icpaaav tovtov 

napiXa^es iv Ki;pty, ha avTrjv -rrXrjpois. AaoSiKeias yeyeinjcTdai dLddcTKaXov, dXX' 

3 So the Ambrosian Hilary on Col. i) irpbs ^LXr]/j.ova imcrToXr) diSda-Ku wj 

iv. 17- ev K.oXa(T(rais ovtos i^ksi' ti^ yap 4>t- 

* Ephes. iv. 11 bears testimony to X^/xovi kuI tovtov avvTarTei: but he 

the existence of the office of evangeUst does not allege any traditional support 

at this date. for his own opinion. 

5 It is adopted by Tlaeodore of ^ gee above, pp. 2, 15. 

20 —